Author
Topic: Western-rite Orthodoxy (Read 66028 times)

I've been meaning to start a thread on this topic for some time. I know that it's been discussed before a bit, but I think the time is ripe to consider once again the questions posed by the emergence of the Western rite in the Orthodox Church.

My own take on it, in a nutshell, is that Orthodoxy should allow for the establishment of Western-rite parishes, should an entire parish wish to convert to Orthodoxy and retain a Western usage. I would say the same thing in terms of an eventual reunion with the West, should that ever come to pass. The Orthodox must allow for some kind of Western liturgy, although probably not the novus ordo as it is now practiced in North American Latin Churches, to be used by the Western Church in this instance.

I think that some Eastern disciplines should clearly apply to Westerners. For example, fasting before communion would have to be the rule. But what about issues like fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays? Perhaps they should just follow Eastern rules whole hog here? Or maybe there should be something of an allowance for divergence in practice, perhaps a return to pre-Vatican II fasting practice for Westerners being prescribed?

I am of the opinion that Western theological emphasis should be permitted and encouraged in Western parishes that are received into Orthodoxy, up to a point. There is clearly a point beyond which one cannot go here. Clearly, any such emphases must be confined to developments occuring in the first millenium of Church history, and even then, some should be viewed with caution. I suppose a hybrid kind of emphasis might be what I would favour, but really with Eastern concepts taking the lead.

Some Western liturigies already in use in the Orthodox world appear to me to be quite suspect, others being more sound. In theory, I have a great deal of difficulty with Anglican usage that is now allowed in some parishes, seeing as the Anglican rite evolved in a very inorganic, non-traditional way: it was basically artificially constructed. The epiclesis inserted in the Anglican rite seems very artificial too: would not a supplices te rogamus prayer be more compatible with Western forms?

Another problem I have with some Western liturgies is that they are actually more primitive in form than Eastern liturgies, and as such, do not have built in to their content the reflection of the historic battes for Orthodoxy that were waged in the early and middle Byzantine period. Also, because of their more primitive nature, Western liturgies are, ironically, less scriptural in content and not nearly as doctrinally explicit.

And yet, having said all this, would it be possible for the Orthodox to allow for a wide variety of non-traditional liturgical use to be brought into play, just so long as the faith was held in common, and trust the Holy Spirit to confirm that which is good in this practice, and to weed out was inappropriate? After all, Orthodoxy has historically taken that which was good in a given culture and sacralized it, making it its own. We shouldn't be out to "Byzantinize" or "Russify" or "Romanianize" people, but to share the treasure of the Orthodox faith with them.

It's true that many Orthodox do not consider Western-rite Orthodoxy to be legitmate at all. As far as I can tell, this is because of a few arguments that are somewhat related. In the first case, some of these liturgies have been mothballed for ages(e.g., the Sarum rite) and are museum pieces, not liturgies that have been allowed to develop naturally. A similar argument against Western liturgical usage would be that it evolved in a schismatic and/or heterodox setting. But I think that under certain conditions, it simply has to be allowed. I would like to hear divergent views on this topic, that I know are out there! My own position is far from fixed on it, and I could change my mind on some issues, should I encounter compelling and convincing arguments. Comments?

I agree with your general statement--that there should be Western Rite Orthodox Churches. Here in Omaha, we are fortunate to have one (part of the Antiochian archdiocese) and sometimes I go there for Vespers and Matins during the week. The prayers and the hymns and the style of chanting (Gregorian) are very gratifying to my Western ears, though, I have come to make the Eastern Rite my preference.

As far as fasting rules go, I know that the Western Rite is not as strict as Eastern Rite. For instance, fasting is pretty much limited to Wednesdays and Fridays even during the Nativity Lent and Great Lent seasons and also the restrictions on what can be consumed is relaxed. The thing I do not want to happen is people becoming Western Orthodox only because they feel they cannot handle the rigidity of the Eastern Fast. There should be more clarification on this.

But for those who are former liturgical Lutherans (like myself) and Episcopalians and RCs, the Western-Rite Orthodox parishes could be a good catalyst to bring them into the one true faith. I know from some of my conversations, that many converts became Western Rite because the mystical nature of the Eastern Rite was foreign to them. So let them have their Western Rite congregations.

James Bob and Scamandrius,What a great topic! I would say, I agree with everything what you wrote. I consider that some people can found Western rite more native for them and the decision of conversion may become much easier. Additionally, the veneration of Western Saints has a lot of indication that good components of thier previous faith are well respected. Especially, that would apply to Roman Catholics. Personally, I agree that existing congregations or significant parts of existing parishes can be accepted as new Western Rite Orthodox parishes. But also it would seem applicble to consider an idea of establishment of a new Western Rite misssion in every major USA city. For example, it has been successfully implemented in Washington, DC by AOA. Being an Eastern Rite cradle from "the Old Country", I visited that mission - St. Gregory the Great - several times and I really enjoyed services. So, I would say for someone, who spent years within Liturgical Lutheran, RC or Episcopalian traditions, an opportunity to visit familiar serivces in the Orthodox Chruch would be even much more beneficial, even if these people consider only Eastern Rite.That issues of new Western mission appears especially important now after new SCOBA decisions regarding coordinated missionary work and during the time of growing disappointment of conservative Episcopalians, caused by certain overly liberal changes. Last, but not least. Exposure to ancient Western Rite Orthodox spirituality to broader Easter Rite audience would enhance thier faith and illustrate more international character of Orthodoxy, which may benefit for example in cases of non-Orthodox spouses conversion to Orthodoxy. Orthodox Church in UK already has done a lot of work in studies of pre-schism Western spirituality.

I agree with your general statement--that there should be Western Rite Orthodox Churches. Here in Omaha, we are fortunate to have one (part of the Antiochian archdiocese) and sometimes I go there for Vespers and Matins during the week. The prayers and the hymns and the style of chanting (Gregorian) are very gratifying to my Western ears, though, I have come to make the Eastern Rite my preference.

Interesting. I've never been able to attend a Western rite service. I would like to some day.

Quote

As far as fasting rules go, I know that the Western Rite is not as strict as Eastern Rite. For instance, fasting is pretty much limited to Wednesdays and Fridays even during the Nativity Lent and Great Lent seasons and also the restrictions on what can be consumed is relaxed. The thing I do not want to happen is people becoming Western Orthodox only because they feel they cannot handle the rigidity of the Eastern Fast. There should be more clarification on this.

I guess you're right. It's possible that this might become a problem. Is the solution to make Eastern fasting practices the rule across the board?

James Bob and Scamandrius,What a great topic! I would say, I agree with everything what you wrote. I consider that some people can found Western rite more native for them and the decision of conversion may become much easier. Additionally, the veneration of Western Saints has a lot of indication that good components of thier previous faith are well respected. Especially, that would apply to Roman Catholics. Personally, I agree that existing congregations or significant parts of existing parishes can be accepted as new Western Rite Orthodox parishes. But also it would seem applicble to consider an idea of establishment of a new Western Rite misssion in every major USA city. For example, it has been successfully implemented in Washington, DC by AOA. Being an Eastern Rite cradle from "the Old Country", I visited that mission - St. Gregory the Great - several times and I really enjoyed services. So, I would say for someone, who spent years within Liturgical Lutheran, RC or Episcopalian traditions, an opportunity to visit familiar serivces in the Orthodox Chruch would be even much more beneficial, even if these people consider only Eastern Rite.That issues of new Western mission appears especially important now after new SCOBA decisions regarding coordinated missionary work and during the time of growing disappointment of conservative Episcopalians, caused by certain overly liberal changes. Last, but not least. Exposure to ancient Western Rite Orthodox spirituality to broader Easter Rite audience would enhance thier faith and illustrate more international character of Orthodoxy, which may benefit for example in cases of non-Orthodox spouses conversion to Orthodoxy. Orthodox Church in UK already has done a lot of work in studies of pre-schism Western spirituality.

Starlight,

You make a pretty convincing case for broadening the acceptance of the Western rite beyond what I think should be allowed. Maybe you are right. I can see how it might make Orthodoxy more appealing to some people, and prove to them that we are not bound to expressions of Orthodoxy that might appear to be tied to just a few cultural expressions of the faith. However, I do worry a bit about Western liturgies not being as doctrinally explicit as Eastern liturgies. I don't dismiss out of hand the arguments of those who like to see the use of the Western rite restricted. I wonder if anyone else has anything to say about this.

However, I do worry a bit about Western liturgies not being as doctrinally explicit as Eastern liturgies. I don't dismiss out of hand the arguments of those who like to see the use of the Western rite restricted. I wonder if anyone else has anything to say about this.

Well, St. Tikhon did look over the Book of Common Prayer and did some things to the liturgy in it. I should think that he knew what he was doing about doctrinal explicitness.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Well, St. Tikhon did look over the Book of Common Prayer and did some things to the liturgy in it. I should think that he knew what he was doing about doctrinal explicitness.

Ebor

Eh, I don't think that your argument necessarily proves the point; he may not have worked on the doctrinal "explicitness" if he didn't think it was necessary, but it doesn't mean that it isn't necessary now, or that it wasn't necessary then.

It would be akin to the argument about the Holy Spirit being "omoousios" in the Creed - why did generations of fathers, and 5 other Ecumenical Councils as well as countless Endemousa Synods and local councils not add it? They felt it wasn't necessary. But one can argue effectively that it belongs in the Creed if the Creed is to be the one-stop, all-inclusive definition of the necessary core of our belief.

So too, the WR liturgy may need to be more "doctrinally explicit" (I don't know - I haven't read it) even though St. Tikhon went over it with a fine-tooth comb; or it may not. If someone wanted to do a textual study here on OC.net of the WR liturgy, then maybe the issues could get hashed out.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

In my city, we have about 30 Orthodox parishes which are all ethnic. The only non-ethnic parish is an OCA one in a neighbouring town 20 minutes away. In the same town, a Western Rite parish is starting up and I've been asked to be a part of it. I see nothing wrong with being part of an Eastern Orthodox parish and a Western Orthodox parish. Actually I think living in North America, it balances it out. I love my greek parish and we do 50/50 english/greek but sometimes you just wanna hear the whole thing in english and thats not bad either. Western Rite services are almost identical to Pre-Vatican II RC services...actually the Tridentine Mass (traditional mass used before the 70's) as it is called has less revisions in it than the byzantine liturgy which kept adding prayers on to it as the centuries passed. Thats why the Western Masses tend to be somewhat shorter. I'm not advocating one over the other. Both Eastern and Western forms are ancient and I have no problem with either form.

I think that some Eastern disciplines should clearly apply to Westerners. For example, fasting before communion would have to be the rule. But what about issues like fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays? Perhaps they should just follow Eastern rules whole hog here? Or maybe there should be something of an allowance for divergence in practice, perhaps a return to pre-Vatican II fasting practice for Westerners being prescribed?

I am of the opinion that Western theological emphasis should be permitted and encouraged in Western parishes that are received into Orthodoxy, up to a point. There is clearly a point beyond which one cannot go here. Clearly, any such emphases must be confined to developments occuring in the first millenium of Church history, and even then, some should be viewed with caution. I suppose a hybrid kind of emphasis might be what I would favour, but really with Eastern concepts taking the lead.

Another problem I have with some Western liturgies is that they are actually more primitive in form than Eastern liturgies, and as such, do not have built in to their content the reflection of the historic battes for Orthodoxy that were waged in the early and middle Byzantine period. Also, because of their more primitive nature, Western liturgies are, ironically, less scriptural in content and not nearly as doctrinally explicit.

After all, Orthodoxy has historically taken that which was good in a given culture and sacralized it, making it its own. We shouldn't be out to "Byzantinize" or "Russify" or "Romanianize" people, but to share the treasure of the Orthodox faith with them.

Pravoslav, fasting before ocmmunion is not solely an Eastern development. Up until 2 decades ago, Catholics had to fast between 3-9 hours before reception of Communion.

Historically, in the West, ppl only fasted on Friday- not the Wednesday.

About it being more primitive, that is part of the beauty of it. We can look at the Byzantine Rite as something as an ongoing development from the 3rd century to the 10th. And we can see the Western liturgy as basically having the same form since the 5th century. Whats wrong with that? A natural development of liturgy is OK, a random reformation of liturgy is NOT (aka Vat. II).

I agree. I'd hate to walk into a western orthodox parish and see tons of icons and no statues for example. Every rite or tradition should stick to its original form, without trying to hybrid with anything else.

Actually I think living in North America, it balances it out. I love my greek parish and we do 50/50 english/greek but sometimes you just wanna hear the whole thing in english and thats not bad either. Western Rite services are almost identical to Pre-Vatican II RC services...actually the Tridentine Mass (traditional mass used before the 70's) as it is called has less revisions in it than the byzantine liturgy which kept adding prayers on to it as the centuries passed. Thats why the Western Masses tend to be somewhat shorter.

(...)

About it being more primitive, that is part of the beauty of it. We can look at the Byzantine Rite as something as an ongoing development from the 3rd century to the 10th. And we can see the Western liturgy as basically having the same form since the 5th century. Whats wrong with that? A natural development of liturgy is OK, a random reformation of liturgy is NOT (aka Vat. II).

Eh, not only oversimplification, but not totally accurate.

Oh, and shorter doesn't necessarily mean more "ancient."

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Well, I guess not totally accurate, in so far as the Roman Canon didn't reach its static form until the early 7th century (having been truncated rather considerably over the previous two centuries). I suppose one could also say that there were some Galician influences after that, and some additions here and there (preparatory prayers, Agnus Dei, addition of the Creed, the Last Gospel, etc.).

It's hard for me to compare the significance of these additions in the Roman Rite to the medieval changes in the Byzantine Rite.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 01:24:36 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

I only mean that with the independence of OCA from Russia, isn't the OCA free to develop its own unique American Tradition?

Pax Vobiscum

I see, Francis-Christopher. What we are talking about here are liturgies that have developed in the West and their Orthodox usage. I think that what you are suggesting will take hold, but it will take place slowly over a period of time. Eventually, there will be something like a North American recension of the Divine Liturgy, but it will still be the liturgies of St.Basil and St. John Chrysostom that are in use.

Well, St. Tikhon did look over the Book of Common Prayer and did some things to the liturgy in it. I should think that he knew what he was doing about doctrinal explicitness.

I have to say, that, in its present form, I find this liturgy somewhat artificial. I think it's kind of weird that there is an epiclesis stuck into it.....which ironically is quite explicit, but that's just it, it seems kind of foreign to the way Western Liturgy developed. If they had used something like the te supplices rogamus prayer from the old Roman canon, would it have been more appropriate? Have you ever participated in one of these liturgies, Ebor or anyone else? If you did, what was your impression?

Well, I've been in lurk mode since... the site went down. It's been really nice, but I love the Western Rite, so I had to come out, if not just to put in my two cents.

I see the epiclesis come up a lot. To a theologian, it's probably a big deal, but to the ordinary person going to worship every Sunday, it doesn't raise any eyebrows. I didn't know it had been added in till I was told in my class for catachumens. And to tell the truth, I'm not 100% sure I know what it is. I gather is is the part where we ask for God to make the Host and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ instead of just thanking him for doing so? At any rate, I'm going to an OCA parish now- obviously Eastern Rite. I have never been lost, as far as the Divine Liturgy goes. It's about the same thing, but it goes more into detail on the petitions and it repeats itself at times. The customs are what are different, like 50% water and 50% wine in the chalice, and blessed wine with the blessed bread, or that the rubrics call for warm water. I also like that as you're serving you can hide behind the iconostasis; plus my parish closes the doors and pulls the curtain when it can. Oh, and only crossing behind the altar, that is a new one. It is easier too, because my priest is also and ex-Episcopalian, so he understands where some of my questions come from, such as, "What candle do I light first?" when I was asked to light the candles.To respond to the earlyer post: no, the Western Rite will not be taking on Eastern fasting rules. A Rite includes more than the Mass. It is the way the life of the church is carried out. I'll admit to you, I've been bad. I've been keeping up my western practices at home, even though I probably wont get back to the WR for a very long time... but that is another thread. It is good to fast, for the right reasons, but WR fasting and abstinance (the WR makes a distinction) is just as effective.

I have to say, that, in its present form, I find this liturgy somewhat artificial. I think it's kind of weird that there is an epiclesis stuck into it.....which ironically is quite explicit, but that's just it, it seems kind of foreign to the way Western Liturgy developed. If they had used something like the te supplices rogamus prayer from the old Roman canon, would it have been more appropriate? Have you ever participated in one of these liturgies, Ebor or anyone else? If you did, what was your impression?

I have been to the Liturgy of St. Tikhon a couple of times. It was nice and everything, but overall it seemed unnatural. About a third seemed like they belonged in a Latin Mass or SSPX church (50's clothing and stuff), the other third seemed like the stereotypical well to do, well dressed Episcopalian, with the other third being a hodge poge. It was a pretty Church and felt like a traditional Latin or Anglican Church with a lot more icons (I don't recall any statues). The priest seemed genuine and there was an Orthodox mindset in the clergy. That said, the liturgy seemed confused. I felt like I was attending a nice Anglican service with a lot more Lord Have mercies and as you said the eclipses which really did stick out like a sore thumb. Futhermore, there seemed to be a general confusion as some people made the sign of the cross with five fingers some with three, some left to right, and some right to left. Again, I'm not saying differences are a bad thing in themselves, but from the Liturgy and the actions sometimes I felt as though I were attending a really watered down Orthodox service with kneeling, or a really nice Anglican Rite Service. It seemed unable to express itself completly and independently. Perhaps time will allow a change in this. So, I have mixed feelings.

I genuinly hope that a western rite can be found, but from my experience with the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, I don't think this is it. Does anyone know how much the Antiochian head is involved with nurturing the western-rite?

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

I got the same impression that pravoslavbob did - that the response thus far to this thread has been a generally positive attitude. That, it seems to me, is a bit of a watershed and I am happy to see it.

In the past there have been some pretty strong, WR-bashing posts.

I'd like to visit a WR service some time; but I doubt I could ever leave the ER now after 4 years (since the first time I wondered in on a liturgy on a snowy Sunday morning).

I belong to a Western rite parish that uses the Rite of St. Gregory, but we used to use the Rite of St. Tikhon several years ago, so I have some experience of both. The epiclesis in the Rite of St. Tikhon was not so much an insertion into but rather a strengthening of an Anglican text. The 1928 American Book of Common Prayer upon which St. Tikhon is based contains a rudimentary epiclesis (the "Invocation"), but it was reworded to be a more explicit Orthodox epiclesis. Compare the following excerpts from the 1928 BCP and St. Tikhon:

1928 BCP:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus ChristÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

St. Tikhon:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus ChristÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. R. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

It is in the Rite of St. Gregory that an epiclesis was inserted, as the Roman Canon lacks one. Here is the epiclesis in St. Gregory, located between the Supra quae propitio and the Supplices te rogamus:

And we beseech thee, O Lord, to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these offerings, that he would make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, transmuting them by thy Holy Spirit. R. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

It is in the Rite of St. Gregory that an epiclesis was inserted, as the Roman Canon lacks one. Here is the epiclesis in St. Gregory, located between the Supra quae propitio and the Supplices te rogamus:

And we beseech thee, O Lord, to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these offerings, that he would make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, transmuting them by thy Holy Spirit. R. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

James,

Good to see someone from a Western rite parish posting here!

This is puzzling to me. Since many Orthodox view the supplices te rogamus as an equivalent to the epiclesis, wouldn't the epiclesis be viewed as being superfluous in this instance?

BTW, does your parish have a website with pics? I'd like to see them. If you don't want to share with everyone here, perhaps you could PM me?

The only one in N.America for sure is in Rhode Island. I've never been there, but I have longed to go so will try visit probably in March. Then, I shall dig up this by then dead thread and report. However, I haven't been to any Sarum Liturgy in any Jursidiction, but I'd hope to go and I hope it'll be more preferable than I found the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. From reading it, I really don't see any objection that sticks out and as I've said, I do think the western rite would be good if you could work out the kinks. I know when I was a catechumine one of the hardest things was leaving the western rite that I grew up with.I believe ROCOR has another Monastery in Austrialia, St Petros, and I believe both monasteries are attached. As far as I know, there are no actual parishes that are western rite, although, I believe that have oblates or a third order. I also believe we have a ROCOR poster here from England and I think he is invovled in the western rite. I'll try to think of his name and maybe he can weigh in.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

The only one in N.America for sure is in Rhode Island. I've never been there, but I have longed to go so will try visit probably in March. Then, I shall dig up this by then dead thread and report. I also believe we have a ROCOR poster here from England and I think he is invovled in the western rite. I'll try to think of his name and maybe he can weigh in.

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

If Fort Worth is in Texas, then I've been there last year and I have to say the ppl there are very friendly.

Yes, they're very friendly.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

My question is what is wrong with Eastern-rite Orthodoxy? I understand, and feel an urgent need for a unified American Orthodox Church in which our liturgies are done in English. The Orthodox Church would become much more approachable if we put down a language barrier. But the idea of compromising Orthodox Tradition to make it more American compatable should not be considered.

Many former Epsicopalians have fully embraced the Liturgy of St Tikon as it makes them feel at home with the service. To them it does not seem contrived but the continuation of their rite they are deeply attached to. Most people from the Roman Catholic backgrounds prefer the Liturgy of St Gregory .

The Sarum Rite tends to be appealing to Liturgists and people who wish to see a historical service, however it is not a currently active service that has continuity and seems to be more of a museum piece with no continuation through the ages past to the present time. The Milan jurisdicton in Austin uses this rite in Austin.

Many former Epsicopalians have fully embraced the Liturgy of St Tikon as it makes them feel at home with the service. To them it does not seem contrived but the continuation of their rite they are deeply attached to. Most people from the Roman Catholic backgrounds prefwere the Liturgy of St Gregory .

Well if they want Episcopalian services, may I recommend an Episcopalian Church? And if they want Catholic services, may I recommend the a Catholic Church? If, however, they want services in line with the Traditions of the Empire, I would recommend an Orthodox Church.

Quote

The Sarum Rite tends to be appealing to Liturgists and people who wish to see a historical service, however it is not a currently active service that has continuity and seems to be more of a museum piece with no continuation through the ages past to the present time. The Milan jurisdicton in Austin uses this rite in Austin.

In the context of Orthodoxy the liturgy of St. Tikon and the liturgy of St. Gregory are no different. Furthermore, not only are their roots museum pieces to us, but their existance within the Orthodox Church is a foreign imposition.

Well if they want Episcopalian services, may I recommend an Episcopalian Church? And if they want Catholic services, may I recommend the a Catholic Church? If, however, they want services in line with the Traditions of the Empire, I would recommend an Orthodox Church.

You know, they could actually be after Truth, rather than "services in line with the Traditions of the Empire." Not everyone converts because they like Slavic culture or Byzantine chant.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Well if they want Episcopalian services, may I recommend an Episcopalian Church? And if they want Catholic services, may I recommend the a Catholic Church? If, however, they want services in line with the Traditions of the Empire, I would recommend an Orthodox Church.

He is right- if we as Orthodox believe that we are the True Church, why should we implement elements of denominations that have fallen away from the Church? However, greekischristian, be careful of calling the Holy Orthodox Church, and the Tradition therein, the Traditions of the Empire. That could lead to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of Tradition in the Orthodox Church.

However, greekischristian, be careful of calling the Holy Orthodox Church, and the Tradition therein, the Traditions of the Empire. That could lead to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of Tradition in the Orthodox Church.

Yes it could lead to such confusion and misunderstanding...and that's half the fun

It's not half the fun when dealing with people who are already misled about the teachings of Orthodoxy. A lot of the protestant argument against Orhtodoxy has to do with their idea that the emperor had too much to do with the Church.

Quite true, but perhaps if we can get them on a theologically-correct path, they'll find their way home to the Divine Liturgy.

Certainly. That is the hope for anyone who is looking to bring people to Orthodoxy. However I don't feel the need to compromise any aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy. I've been to a few protestant and non-demoninatiol services and I find so much lacking, that there really is nothing of substance to bring into the Orthodox Liturgy from outside.

Certainly. That is the hope for anyone who is looking to bring people to Orthodoxy. However I don't feel the need to compromise any aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy. I've been to a few protestant and non-demoninatiol services and I find so much lacking, that there really is nothing of substance to bring into the Orthodox Liturgy from outside.

Using non-denominational services to argue against using Western liturgical formats is like comparing apples and screwdrivers. They're so far apart there's no basis of comparison or critique. There may be good and legitimate arguments against allowing Anglican and Roman-based Western rites, but none of those arguments involve concerns about non-denominational services. At least the criticisms of the Sarum-based rites being museum pieces have some legitimate basis in reality.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

I don't know if you are seeing my point. My concern, and the concern of other is the allowing of any outside influence on Orthodoxy. I know there is a big different between high protestant sects and non-denominational services, but regardless I feel that there is nothing that needs to be brought into Orthodoxy from either of these sides.

I don't know if you are seeing my point. My concern, and the concern of other is the allowing of any outside influence on Orthodoxy. I know there is a big different between high protestant sects and non-denominational services, but regardless I feel that there is nothing that needs to be brought into Orthodoxy from either of these sides.

If you plan to apply your argument consistently, then you also need to state that all of those old pagan customs that the Church baptized and brought into Orthodoxy also shouldn't have been brought in. After all, if an Anglican or Roman liturgy that grew out of Orthodox roots is unbaptizable and must remain forever outside of Orthodoxy, how much more so must that apply to once-pagan customs that the Church redeemed. I'll let you be the one to tell the Serbs that slava shouldn't have ever been brought into the Church, however.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

But we already have a liturgy, and a very nice one at that. Furthermore, these liturgies are not the customs of culture that has converted to Orthodxy, they are customs of a culture that is foreign to Orthodoxy. And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church.

But we already have a liturgy, and a very nice one at that. Furthermore, these liturgies are not the customs of culture that has converted to Orthodxy, they are customs of a culture that is foreign to Orthodoxy. And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but I find it highly unlikely that previous customs that have been baptized into the Church were adopted after the culture had converted in its entirely. It's far more probable that they were baptized as part of the process of converting the culture, not after the task was finished.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

"Quite true, but perhaps if we can get them on a theologically-correct path, they'll find their way home to the Divine Liturgy."I think I'm going to throw up.The more Orthodox I become, the more I love Her western liturgies.

"And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church."Your liturgy is nice, I've been going to it since I moved, but I still like the WR liturgies more. Orthodoxy has been influenced by her surrounding culture since the very begining. If not, Russia and Greece would look a lot alike. And come on, no one wants to be like the Greeks but the Greeks.

"And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church."Your liturgy is nice, I've been going to it since I moved, but I still like the WR liturgies more. Orthodoxy has been influenced by her surrounding culture since the very begining. If not, Russia and Greece would look a lot alike. And come on, no one wants to be like the Greeks but the Greeks.

Ah, but look at the Russian liturgy, it is essentially the same as the Greek liturgy, they just have strange looking clothes and sing funny. That is fundamentally different than adopting a foriegn religious rite in its entirety and making a few minor changes to make the theology at least palatable.

As opposed to, oh, I don't know, adopting a pagan religious rite in its entirety and making some major changes to make the theology palatable?

Ah, but these were pagan religious rites indigenous to a culture (Greek Culture) that converted nearly in its entirety. Thus it was a natural and organic growth within the Church. Now the same could be said for the Anglican services IF the whole of England converted to Orthodoxy and Canterbury entered into communion with Constantinople. But until such time a better analogy would be if we were to adopt ancestor worship because two or three chinese converted to Orthodoxy.

My basic POV: make use of Western Rite if parishes of Western Christians want to come over en masse and pastorally need it, or if there is a specific missionary reason in a specific circumstance to use it;

My basic POV: make use of Western Rite if parishes of Western Christians want to come over en masse and pastorally need it, or if there is a specific missionary reason in a specific circumstance to use it;

As much as I love the Western liturgical tradition, I think its days of being an effective missionary tool, other than in the limited circumstances Anastasios mentioned, are waning. My generation didn't grow up with the Tridentine Mass, so other than a handful of REALLY High Church Anglicans and Latin Mass Catholic - the Orthodox Western rite is just as foreign as the Byzantine rite.

I have no issue with the WR, but the idea that it would be some kind of missionary tool to me is absurd. It's the province of a certain crowd of liturgical enthusiasts (and I don't have a problem with that either).

I have no issue with the WR, but the idea that it would be some kind of missionary tool to me is absurd. It's the province of a certain crowd of liturgical enthusiasts (and I don't have a problem with that either).

It's not that absurd, given that its a natural for Romans and high-church Protestants who are attracted to Orthodoxy but turned off by the "eastern-ness" of it. If I had been presented with the option to attend a WR parish when converting from Anglicanism, it would have been a no-brainer.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 02:37:59 PM by Veniamin »

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

It's not that absurd, given that its a natural for Romans and high-church Protestants who are attracted to Orthodoxy but turned off by the "eastern-ness" of it. If I had been presented with the option to attend a WR parish when converting from Anglicanism, it would have been a no-brainer.

I have two theories about this.

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Anyhow, believe me, I'm not putting down the WR and I wish them all possible success. There's just no way it ever could have been or ever will be a missionary tool. It's a liturgical interest group, and something that will only hold an attraction for a small group of people.

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

I was certainly attracted to the easterness of it but is that a valid reason to convert in the same vein?

Quote

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Perhaps. I certainly know you are right about some of these people. But I think you are overstating your case and generalizing. I do know some sincere Western Christians who DO believe their bishops were heretics and thus became Orthodox, but loved their liturgy and could not give it up. Why make more burdens for them?

Quote

Anyhow, believe me, I'm not putting down the WR and I wish them all possible success. There's just no way it ever could have been or ever will be a missionary tool. It's a liturgical interest group, and something that will only hold an attraction for a small group of people.

Yes, it may be true that it is of small interest, but for those who are of that mind, it is an effective missionary tool. Before the Antiochians picked up the EOC, the WR was envisioned as their missionary arm and they were able to get some solid congregations through it.

FWIW, this year has seen two congregations come home via the WR. One Anglican bishop in VA, and an Episcopal priest in Houston. They are small groups, but Jesus started with 12. And a Lutheran minister in the midwest has came home- he is interrested in the WR, but only time will tell what happens.

There is one argument that has been used over and over on this site that I don't understand. Why does conversion in masse make a difference in the liturgy that can be used? And what is the difference between people who convert because they think the eastern DL is cool and the people who convert because they think the western DL is cool? I think many come for the wrong reasons and stay for the right ones.

There is one argument that has been used over and over on this site that I don't understand. Why does conversion in masse make a difference in the liturgy that can be used?

Because there is something to be said for liturgical unity in a diocese, and our patriarchates all use the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom as the received liturgy. It is artificial for us to try to start and support WR missions--it can easily end up looking vagante, and in fact often did when people broke off. However, if real, organic communities of Western Christians come over, they can bring a real environment to the mix that will make the liturgy work in context.

Quote

And what is the difference between people who convert because they think the eastern DL is cool and the people who convert because they think the western DL is cool? I think many come for the wrong reasons and stay for the right ones.

I think the perception is that some convert to the WR and never abandon their Western heretical ideas. From personal experience, I know this to often be true. Some are chrismated as a pro forma act and continue to be Anglican or Catholic in their beliefs. However, I do not in any way intend or mean to begrudge the many other WR Orthodox who ARE Orthodox completely.

As for people who convert because the DL is cool, like I said, I don't exactly think that is the best reason to convert LOL. After all, sometimes we get Eastern Catholics coming over because we are "less latinized." That to me is just as bad as Anglicans becoming WR and keeping Anglican beliefs.

I was certainly attracted to the easterness of it but is that a valid reason to convert in the same vein?

What do you mean? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying there.

Quote

But I think you are overstating your case and generalizing. I do know some sincere Western Christians who DO believe their bishops were heretics and thus became Orthodox, but loved their liturgy and could not give it up. Why make more burdens for them?

I am generalizing, but I would still be willing to bet that if the Anglican/Episcopal Church hadn't gone off the rails, most of the WR people would never consider conversion. The bishops have though, so that's just a moot point anyway.

Personally, I don't advocate putting barriers in their way. I have no issue with the WR as I've said. I would attend one of their services if I was ever near where one was held.

Quote

Yes, it may be true that it is of small interest, but for those who are of that mind, it is an effective missionary tool. Before the Antiochians picked up the EOC, the WR was envisioned as their missionary arm and they were able to get some solid congregations through it.

I just don't think there will be that many that will follow. It's just my feeling.

I think the main reason they will never really be an effective missionary tool, aside from the reasons I stated, is I doubt they will ever have their own hierarchy. I believe they will be under the care, guidance and whims of Byzantine bishops. One need only look at the Eastern Catholics to see what that can lead to.

Another consideration is that for many of us who reject the modern liturgical theology floating around, liturgies did not develop primarily out of happenstance, but rather by being guided by the Lord himself, so the Byzantine Rite winning out over other liturgies being used in the Chalcedonian Church was part of some unknown providence. Therefore, reintroducing liturgies that are not used organically is beyond our authority, but if a community comes to Orthodox that uses said liturgy organically, that is a valid reason. To create a new community not used to that organic liturgy would be going against the historical development of the liturgy by the hand of God, while of course I would not want to be dogmatic and say it should never happen because there may be like I said reasons to do it for the good of the faithful.

This is puzzling to me. Since many Orthodox view the supplices te rogamus as an equivalent to the epiclesis, wouldn't the epiclesis be viewed as being superfluous in this instance?

BTW, does your parish have a website with pics? I'd like to see them. If you don't want to share with everyone here, perhaps you could PM me?

JB

JB,

Not being a liturgical expert, I can't really comment on the possible superfluity of the epiclesis from a liturgical standpoint. I would say that from an historical perspective, however, since the pre-schism Roman canon was the same as the Tridentine canon adapted for use in the Rite of St. Gregory, the insertion of the epiclesis was not strictly necessary to "make it Orthodox". Then there is also the ceremonial incongruity of the elevations and adoration taking place within the Institution narrative but before the epiclesis, which I think is pretty common in Western rite Orthodox parishes.

There is at least one other change that was made in the canon for the Rite of St. Gregory - "merits" was dropped from the translation of the last line of the Communicantes so that it reads, "through whose prayers grant that in all things we may be guarded by the help of thy protection." A more accurate translation of the Latin original is, "for the sake of whose merits and prayers do thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of thy protection." Even the ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo Roman Canon retains "merits". I think "merits" was also in the pre-schism canon.

Here is the URL for our parish web site. It has a link to some pictures.

However, if real, organic communities of Western Christians come over, they can bring a real environment to the mix that will make the liturgy work in context.

I've seen this happen, and, to bring back the specific example from a few pages ago, St. Peter's here in Ft. Worth is a good example of this. I've talked with folks who've attended other WR parishes and have said that those parishes are Orthodox in name only. I'm convinced that Fr. Anthony (of St. Peter's) is deliberate in his efforts to emphasize that they are not Episcopalian; they are not Catholic; they are Orthodox--and he's not talking to any Greek bishop who's naysaying out there; he's laying down the gauntlet to his own flock, making it clear what and who they are. It's sad that not all WR parishes do this.

I have to say, when I first became Orthodox, I did so in spite of the Byzantine tones, liturgics, etc. I did so because the true faith was within this communion, and that's it. I knew I had to take the wrapping with the package, in other words. When my wife and I moved to Ft. Worth, I (due to my stopovers in western liturgical churches on my way to Orthodoxy) was ready to join St. Peter's. My wife--who had had no such stopovers--asked if we could also visit some ER churches. We wound up at the OCA parish we've called home for four and a half years--she got to stay consistent in rite, and I was able to settle in easily to the much-more-palatable-to-western-ears Russian tones--and, oddly enough...I prefer ER now. I'll say in a heartbeat that I still love the WR presence in the Church--may God grant them growth and many, many years!--and I can slip right into worship at St. Peter's without even blinking, but the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is "my" liturgy now.

Perhaps, should God grant, a western rite vicar will eventually be a bishop of sorts over the AWRV--this would, I would think, lead to much more uniformity and unity of identity and purpose within the vicariate--but until then, our brothers and sisters who share the same faith, the same creed and the same chalice as we ER-ers have to blaze a trail that may not always be convenient or pleasing to us. They need, I think, our patience and compassion during this time of trial; they do not need our suspicion or unfounded nitpicking.

It is not a question of something being "wrong" with the EO liturgy but that such a service does not necessarily work with every human being and why should it. God made every person unique; we are not cookie cutter images. I am one such person. I have been to many EO services and I cannot worship there the way I can in an Anglican one.

Quote

But the idea of compromising Orthodox Tradition to make it more American compatable should not be considered.

What is "compromising" and what is adapting or adjusting or to use someone else's words "baptizing" the culture? What of 't' vs 'T' tradition?

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Have you ever participated in one of these liturgies, Ebor or anyone else? If you did, what was your impression?

Yes, I have been to a WR service or two. Such parishes are thin on the ground as you probably know. There were familiar hymns and prayers and structures. There were a few bits that were different, but that did not faze me as the Book of Common Prayer has 4 different Eucharistic prayers and in the parishes I've been in they often change with the liturgical seasons (along with the vestment colours )

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Well, in that is another aspect... are some people going *TO* EO or going *AWAY* from where they were. There is a difference.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Quite true, but perhaps if we can get them on a theologically-correct path, they'll find their way home to the Divine Liturgy.

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept,..." Psalm 137

Ebor

My apologies. I'm feeling a bit grim at the moment. I'll take a break before reading the threads on the most recent developements in my Church and the parishes in Virginia.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 06:01:37 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept,..." Psalm 137

Ebor

My apologies. I'm feeling a bit grim at the moment. I'll take a break before reading the threads on the most recent developements in my Church and the parishes in Virginia.

You have my sympathies. One good thing---at the very least, they will remain in the Anglican Communion.

On the matter of this thread, I am with you. I grew up loving the Byzantines and I very much appreciate and respect Eastern Christianity, but I myself am thoroughly Western liturgically, culturally and theologically. I couldn't imagine being otherwise.

(Referring back to the last post on page 5). In the early stages of my journey, I too was attracted to Russian Orthodoxy because it resonated with my western ears (not to mention a loving priest). That is where I ended up. But there is an Antiochian parish and priest who are dear to my heart and a Greek parish that I admire but is just too big to have tried to integrate into at the time.

The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is likewise "my" liturgy now.

Regarding the page 6 sentiments of this thread, I feel schizo; there is a very intuitive part of me that is so at home, in love with and finally at peace in the Eastern ethos, dogma and liturgy. And there is a rationalistic side of me that thinks in very western theological categories. And there is nothing, especially at Christmas, like a "tall steeple" Presbyterian church with a great choir and paid brass quartet! The hymnology of the Reformed and Methodist churches is very strong aesthetically and lyrically.

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop? The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

I'm wondering what some of you anti-Western Rite people (GiC first of all, of course) think of this article. Please, take the arguement of the article and not the disagreement with his Eminence of Blessed Memory, Metropolitan Athony of SF.

I see nothing wrong with having a bishopb administer two rites, his own, and that of another ppl still orthodox but of another rite. There is a Chinese Catholic church in my city which attracts lots of attention from chinese and non-chinese. The church is shaped like a chinese building but there is a cross and a statue of the Virgin Mary on the front lawn. Why couldn't we have a Chinese Orthodox Church in America? They would use their own rite no?

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop?

I am pondering this question and I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you're driving at. My apologies for being a bit thick. Is it that there is an idea that all must be alike under a bishop or archbishop? Why would this be so, if that is your meaning? "Completely divorced"? Being Christian there would be some relation, I should think, but again I'm not quite catching your idea.

In the Anglican Churches we have a number of liturgies and services in which there is some leeway according to the rubrics in how things are done, some higher, some simpler. Depending on where one is there are also local differences, I have a New Zealand Book of Common Prayer as well as ones from the US, England and Scotland. There is a common frame but within that there are differences based on the local culture and people.

Quote

The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

Well, then that might suggest that EO is not for every human being. As to it being inappropriate for Rome to have the Byzantine Catholic parishs, I don't have a dog in that hunt as the saying goes so it is not my place to speak of that of which I know little.

I'll get more coffee and see if I can understand more what you're saying.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I see nothing wrong with having a bishopb administer two rites, his own, and that of another ppl still orthodox but of another rite. There is a Chinese Catholic church in my city which attracts lots of attention from chinese and non-chinese. The church is shaped like a chinese building but there is a cross and a statue of the Virgin Mary on the front lawn. Why couldn't we have a Chinese Orthodox Church in America? They would use their own rite no?

In my area we have a Vietnamese Catholic parish with nice asian architecture in which one of their customs from that country was that when the bishop visited (for the consecration it might have been) he was carried in on a kind of palanquin. The RC bishop did so, out of respect for the people, but I think he was a little non-plussed.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Even if you don't consider the Pope more than Patriarch of Rome, the Roman See has had Byzantine members subject to it uninterrupted since before the schism, the Patrirach of Constantinople would have had the same if it had not let the Latin Monastery of Amalfion on Mt Athos fade into oblivion.

Even if you don't consider the Pope more than Patriarch of Rome, the Roman See has had Byzantine members subject to it uninterrupted since before the schism, the Patrirach of Constantinople would have had the same if it had not let the Latin Monastery of Amalfion on Mt Athos fade into oblivion.

Yes, Rome had eastern-rite parishes, and Constantinople had western-rite parishes; parishes while under the ecclesiastical authority of their local bishop, were part of the organic liturgical and spiritual community of the other See. Thus, while they would be ruled by, obedient to, and commemorate their local Bishop, the Bishop who shared their rite would offer liturgical and spiritual guidance. This worked fine when Old and New Rome were in communion, just as is the case with non-Greek monasteries on Mt. Athos. However, when communion was broken and this liturgical and spiritual connection to the patriarchates of other rites was lost, these foreign-rite churches could no longer be sustained in a healthy manner. Thus, Constantinople wisely closed these parishes and monasteries or required them to use the rite of the Patriarchate. Unfortunately Rome failed to see this and this failure led to a deepening of the schism and some of the worst moments in the history of our two Churches.

I'm wondering what some of you anti-Western Rite people (GiC first of all, of course) think of this article. Please, take the arguement of the article and not the disagreement with his Eminence of Blessed Memory, Metropolitan Athony of SF.

If the article is what I believe it was intended to be, an apologetic for the western rite, I must say that it feel well short. If it set out to be a brief historical overview of the western-rite services, then it was at least partially successful. The author's addressing of His Eminence, of Blessed Memory, was respectful, if only marginally so. But a few other things unrelated to the argument stood out and concerned me. First, his claim that St. John Chrysostom was an 'Arab Christian,' perhaps I am in error, but I fear this was the first time I have heard such a claim, does someone have some reference to suggest that St. John Chrysostom was indeed an Arab, or is this just poor scholarship? Secondly, I am quite disturbed by the profound disrespect this 'Priest' showed towards Patriarch Theodore VI of Antioch, the Great Canonist Balsamon.

Now onto the content. It would seem as though the goal of the majority of the essay is to demonstrate that the western rite really was the historical liturgy of the west, in response to His Eminence's claim that it was not. This very approach was something of a strawman argument, because nearly the entire essay was devoted to this issue, which wasn't even the primary objection of His Eminence. But with that said, the essay failed to prove its point. What is needed to prove this point is not a narrative on the history of the rite (quietly ignoring any post schism evolution or development of the liturgy), but rather a side by side comparison of the text of the liturgy as it is used today and the a critical text of the liturgy as it was pre-schism. The author would then need to examanine and explain the variations (if any, though I presume there are many, liturgies dont remain static). Towards the end of this section of the essay the author did compare similarities, but frankly I can (and have in papers at Holy Cross) find more similarities than were mentioned between the Tridentine Mass and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that hardly means the two are interchangeable. Though I am not a liturgist and cannot speak with certainty about the ancient liturgies, what is telling is that the author found it necessary to compare similarities rather than differences between the liturgy now used and the ancient liturgy.

Clearly there has been substantial evolution in the liturgies over the last 1000 years, evolution that took place completely outside the Orthodox Church. And while, in reference to the Anglican liturgies used, the author went to great lengths to demonstrate that the liturgy was not protestantized, he did little to demonstrate that it was not influenced my medieval Latin theology, some of which must have occured for the liturgy to even be compared to protestant theology (which was done in the essay itself).

Furthermore, the author clearly admited evolutions and developments to the Roman rite during the time of Charlemagne and at the direction of the same. While the schism may not yet have formally occured by this time in history, clear cultural and theological division were starting to form, not the least of which was the iconoclastic tendency of Charlemagne and the Germanic peoples at this time. Therefore this Carolingian influence should also be looked upon with concern, with the theological and cultural developments of this era being considered in the context of the Council of Frankfort and related social influences. None of these difficulities or concerns are even suggested in the very incomplete essay presented.

The final page of the essay, which finally purports to address one of the substantial issues in the discussion, is perhaps the most disturbing element of the paper. On top of the poor scholarship and disrespectiful style, the argument is a non-sequitur. He gives a few examples of various liturgies that developed locally and organically in different geographical regions, tells us how evil we are for advancing liturgical unity (as though this 'Priest' has an appreciation of 13th Century imperial politics that even approaches that of Balsamon), and then insists that because of this we should embrace a museum piece as an organic Orthodox Liturgy (well, not exactly a museum piece, an organic western liturgy that developed for a thousand years completely outside of the Orthodox Church and any sphere of influence she might have had in the context of cultural and theological discussions and developments that are completely foreign to the Orthodox Church; though the author would have us believe that it is simply a museum piece).

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop? The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

At least the Eastern Catholic churches do have their own bishops, and, in some cases, patriarchs, but then they have been around a lot longer than we Western Rite Orthodox. I suspect that in due time we will have Western Rite Orthodox bishops. Meanwhile we are strongly encouraged and supported by our Antiochian bishops, and at least one GOA bishop.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

It has been our Orthodox failure that we long spent our energies fruitlessly protesting your Uniate program rather than in imitating it, for we too claim to be the one, true Christ of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Within the last quarter of a century the Orthodox Church has tardily corrected this policy, and today there are Orthodox faithful in Europe and America who follow the Roman Latin rite. In my own diocese I have four parishes and a mission that use the latin rite in the vernacular, and I am proud that we have led the way in this movement in the United States. In the last issue of Unitas magazine I read with pleasure the positive appraisal of Western Rite Orthodoxy by a Father Kelleher of the Franciscans of the Atonement.

To keep with the food analogy, I think it would be more like straining the soup than adding to it. +Bishop Basil of Wichita has a leadership role in the WR Vicariate (+Most Reverend Bishop Basil, Archepiscopal Vicar). As much as we love him, there will come a day when he will not be in that role. Now, his authority in the WR Vicariate reaches over all bishoprics. Now, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not quite sure what an Archepiscopal Vicar is, but it sounds pretty close to bishop.

To keep with the food analogy, I think it would be more like straining the soup than adding to it. +Bishop Basil of Wichita has a leadership role in the WR Vicariate (+Most Reverend Bishop Basil, Archepiscopal Vicar). As much as we love him, there will come a day when he will not be in that role. Now, his authority in the WR Vicariate reaches over all bishoprics. Now, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not quite sure what an Archepiscopal Vicar is, but it sounds pretty close to bishop.

It does continue the ecclesiological mess. If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess. (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

It does continue the ecclesiological mess. If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess. (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)

I'm assuming you mean situations like the Albanian, Romanian, etc. episcopoi in the OCA. Have to agree there...rather nonesensical. My sister goes to a Romanian OCA parish in Falls Church, VA...and I think she says there are only a few Romanians left. Why doesn't that parish just go under the local OCA bishop? (rhetorical)

In the Catholic terminology an episcopal vicar is a priest/auxillary bishop with responsibility for a certain geographic, ethnic, or ritual group and I assume the same is true for the Orthodox.

I see no reason why in the future the Antiochians could/would not ordain a celibate/widower/monk Western Rite priest (are there any?) as vicar for the Western Rite just as ROCOR has a vicar bishops for the Old Rite.

Then Orthodox Western Liturgies aren't inappropriate either. Thanks for clearing that up.The rest of the Ancient Patriarchates do not, however.Thump that chest with pride (and eyes firmly shut).

I never said Western-rite Orthodoxy is inappropriate. I'm happy to see it.

The rest of the ancient patriarchates have fallen out of communion with Rome. Of course they don't see Rome that way, though they used to.

There was no pride in my statement that the pope represents more than the Latin church but the Catholic Church as a whole---it was a statement in support of the Eastern traditions, which are not inferior in any way.

Pascha 05 the Serbian Patriarch sent then a letter that told them to join local Orthodox parishes until a decision was made about accepting the Western Rtie parishes as a group and he was making no promises that the would, but he would not rule it out either.

I had heard one group, I don't know if it was this group or that under Bishop Germain, had made contacts with the Coptic Patriarchate encouraged by their acceptance of the British Orthodox Church.

If the article is what I believe it was intended to be, an apologetic for the western rite, I must say that it feel well short. If it set out to be a brief historical overview of the western-rite services, then it was at least partially successful. The author's addressing of His Eminence, of Blessed Memory, was respectful, if only marginally so. But a few other things unrelated to the argument stood out and concerned me. First, his claim that St. John Chrysostom was an 'Arab Christian,' perhaps I am in error, but I fear this was the first time I have heard such a claim, does someone have some reference to suggest that St. John Chrysostom was indeed an Arab, or is this just poor scholarship? Secondly, I am quite disturbed by the profound disrespect this 'Priest' showed towards Patriarch Theodore VI of Antioch, the Great Canonist Balsamon.

And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.

Now onto the content. It would seem as though the goal of the majority of the essay is to demonstrate that the western rite really was the historical liturgy of the west, in response to His Eminence's claim that it was not. This very approach was something of a strawman argument, because nearly the entire essay was devoted to this issue, which wasn't even the primary objection of His Eminence. But with that said, the essay failed to prove its point. What is needed to prove this point is not a narrative on the history of the rite (quietly ignoring any post schism evolution or development of the liturgy), but rather a side by side comparison of the text of the liturgy as it is used today and the a critical text of the liturgy as it was pre-schism. The author would then need to examanine and explain the variations (if any, though I presume there are many, liturgies dont remain static). Towards the end of this section of the essay the author did compare similarities, but frankly I can (and have in papers at Holy Cross) find more similarities than were mentioned between the Tridentine Mass and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that hardly means the two are interchangeable. Though I am not a liturgist and cannot speak with certainty about the ancient liturgies, what is telling is that the author found it necessary to compare similarities rather than differences between the liturgy now used and the ancient liturgy.

From your response above, it almost seems to me that you didn't even read the article...or perhaps just skimmed over it and not actually read it. Without actually making a side by side comparison, which would probably be the subject of an entire thesis spanning perhaps ten times the length of the article, I thought the author did a great job of explaining how there really ISN'T much difference between the WO Rite of St. Gregory vs the more than 1000 yr old traditional text.

Clearly there has been substantial evolution in the liturgies over the last 1000 years, evolution that took place completely outside the Orthodox Church. And while, in reference to the Anglican liturgies used, the author went to great lengths to demonstrate that the liturgy was not protestantized, he did little to demonstrate that it was not influenced my medieval Latin theology, some of which must have occured for the liturgy to even be compared to protestant theology (which was done in the essay itself).

Clearly to you, but it doesn't seem like these issues really are as much as influence as you presume. What was that about not being a Liturgist?

Furthermore, the author clearly admited evolutions and developments to the Roman rite during the time of Charlemagne and at the direction of the same. While the schism may not yet have formally occured by this time in history, clear cultural and theological division were starting to form, not the least of which was the iconoclastic tendency of Charlemagne and the Germanic peoples at this time. Therefore this Carolingian influence should also be looked upon with concern, with the theological and cultural developments of this era being considered in the context of the Council of Frankfort and related social influences. None of these difficulities or concerns are even suggested in the very incomplete essay presented.

Not that I think Karl der Grosse deserves to be venerated as a saint, but I was told that he is considered one by the Church of Rome. Wait, wasn't this over 200 years pre-Schism? Oh wait, even though the Schism hadn't happened yet, I guess that all Christians in "the West" for 300+ years pre-Schism must have been heretics according to you. Wasn't Pope Leo III, who actually crowned Karl der Grosse "Emperor of the Romans" actually a defender of Icons while the "God ordained" Emperor in the East Leo III the Isaurian the main cuprit in the Iconoclastics heresy? Sounds like Pot meet Kettle to me. Almost sounds like you could make a legitimate case for Charlemagne to be the true Roman Emperor as a divine Conqueror. But this is all moot, since there has been no Empire for half a millenia or more. The "Ecumenical" Patriarch is Ecumenical in not much more than a nominal sense. God Bless him and rescue him for the T**kish captivity, but the Empire is itself a museum piece.

The final page of the essay, which finally purports to address one of the substantial issues in the discussion, is perhaps the most disturbing element of the paper. On top of the poor scholarship and disrespectiful style, the argument is a non-sequitur. He gives a few examples of various liturgies that developed locally and organically in different geographical regions, tells us how evil we are for advancing liturgical unity (as though this 'Priest' has an appreciation of 13th Century imperial politics that even approaches that of Balsamon), and then insists that because of this we should embrace a museum piece as an organic Orthodox Liturgy (well, not exactly a museum piece, an organic western liturgy that developed for a thousand years completely outside of the Orthodox Church and any sphere of influence she might have had in the context of cultural and theological discussions and developments that are completely foreign to the Orthodox Church; though the author would have us believe that it is simply a museum piece).

Museum piece or not the western liturgy looks to be more legit than you think. What was that again, YOU are not a liturgist?

And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.

What comes around goes around, one who is so dismissive of and disrespectful towards the Great Balsamon deserves no more respect. Of course, if it makes you feel any better, it was simply stylistic imitation to make a point, obviously the point got acorss.

Quote

From your response above, it almost seems to me that you didn't even read the article...or perhaps just skimmed over it and not actually read it. Without actually making a side by side comparison, which would probably be the subject of an entire thesis spanning perhaps ten times the length of the article, I thought the author did a great job of explaining how there really ISN'T much difference between the WO Rite of St. Gregory vs the more than 1000 yr old traditional text.

Oh, I read it, and saw the gaping holes that made it obvious he was only citing that which supported his position. If the liturgies were as similar as the author would have us to believe such a comparison as I recommended would be a fairly simple project indeed. Surely the differences between the current text and the ancient text are so few that they can be counted on one hand, all of which are probably copying errors. I have a sneaking suspicion that the texts arn't identical, which is essentially necessary for him to prove his position that they are completely free of post-schism development. And every 'minor' change is worthy of serious concern, look at the huge difference the introduction of the one word 'filioque' made in the creed. Of course, this is only dealing with the liturgy of St. Gregory; what of the more widely used liturgy of St. Tikhon? That is where his scholarship became particularly bad, for good reason I would guess.

Quote

Clearly to you, but it doesn't seem like these issues really are as much as influence as you presume. What was that about not being a Liturgist?

Very true, but from the article it is quite clear that neither is the author.

Quote

Not that I think Karl der Grosse deserves to be venerated as a saint, but I was told that he is considered one by the Church of Rome. Wait, wasn't this over 200 years pre-Schism? Oh wait, even though the Schism hadn't happened yet, I guess that all Christians in "the West" for 300+ years pre-Schism must have been heretics according to you...

Ah, yes, I am sure that everyone in the west was perfectly Orthodox in 1053 and all of a sudden became heretics in 1054...a mass deconversion, if you will (actually it was 1014, but who's counting?). Amazingly enough, this seems to be the attitude of many advocates of the western rite. The fact of the matter is that the theological divergence began much earlier: Germany was always plagued by the early influence of the Arians on their conversion, the disputes between Augustine and Cassian occured in the early fifth century, by the early seventh century most the west would entertain the double procession of the Holy Spirit, etc. Concerning the Carolingians specifically, while the dogma of Frankfort may have been overturned by Rome the related cultural influences were not. Even to this day it can be seen that the architecture of German Churches is designed to minimize the veneration of statues or icons. Any liturgical or theological developments from this time period should be looked upon with suspect.

It does continue the ecclesiological mess. If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess. (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)

It's not messy at all. Now that the AOA has dioceses, the diocesan bishop is the bishop for all parishes in his diocese, whether Eastern or Western. Bishop Basil does have some responsibility for the Western rite, but he does not act as the diocesan bishop of Western rite parishes, except of course in his own diocese. But as far as I know, even Bishop Basil does not use western vestments and celebrate according to either the rite of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon. Typically when a bishop is present at a Western-rite liturgy, the mass is celebrated by a priest in the presence of the bishop. As Western Orthodoxy matures, I hope that our bishops will become bi-ritual so that they can celebrate pontifical mass according to the Western rite.

Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed. I know of some married and some celibate WR clergymen. I've heard that bishops could possibly come from the Christmister WR monastery in Long Island as the ROCOR eventually heal the rift with the MP.

Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed.

That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.

That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.

So, in other words, Westerners can't be converted. At all. Ever. End of story.

Yup, apparently only Greeks can be Christians.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

It's not messy at all. Now that the AOA has dioceses, the diocesan bishop is the bishop for all parishes in his diocese, whether Eastern or Western. Bishop Basil does have some responsibility for the Western rite, but he does not act as the diocesan bishop of Western rite parishes, except of course in his own diocese. But as far as I know, even Bishop Basil does not use western vestments and celebrate according to either the rite of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon. Typically when a bishop is present at a Western-rite liturgy, the mass is celebrated by a priest in the presence of the bishop. As Western Orthodoxy matures, I hope that our bishops will become bi-ritual so that they can celebrate pontifical mass according to the Western rite.

That's better than what I thought was going on. Thanks.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

In the Catholic terminology an episcopal vicar is a priest/auxillary bishop with responsibility for a certain geographic, ethnic, or ritual group and I assume the same is true for the Orthodox.

I see no reason why in the future the Antiochians could/would not ordain a celibate/widower/monk Western Rite priest (are there any?) as vicar for the Western Rite just as ROCOR has a vicar bishops for the Old Rite.

Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS

Absolutely! Thomas, thank you for information. Or, only in the case if AOA does not have enough of those (if the aforementioned Archimandrite would get the office of the Bishop at another diocese, for example, or more then one would be needed) former Roman Catholic priests, who became Orthodox can handle this task.

Once Rome became steeped in error, remaining in communion with her was counter productive for the Orthodox.

. Exactly!Also, I am compltely in favor of James2's idea of bi-ritual services by Hierarchs. May I just ask, so when the ordination for the Western Rite takes place, in that case do Hierarchs also serve according to the Eastern Rite?

Also, I am compltely in favor of James2's idea of bi-ritual services by Hierarchs. May I just ask, so when the ordination for the Western Rite takes place, in that case do Hierarchs also serve according to the Eastern Rite?

In the Antiochian Archdiocese all the ordinations to deacons and priest are done in "Eastern" practice. All of the western rite clergy are ordained in eastern vestments during an eastern liturgy. I have seen minor orders being ordained in western services where the bishops wear his eastern epitrichilion and omophorion and says the eastern prayers for the office.

"Furthermore, not only are their roots museum pieces to us, but their existance within the Orthodox Church is a foreign imposition."

Actually not true of the Liturgy of St. Gregory, at least the Anaphora. Manuscripts were found on Mt. Athos that contained the Roman Canon (without Byzantine Epiclesis clumsily and unnecessarily added) inserted in the framework of the Litrugy of St. John Chrysostom. This same Liturgy with Roman Canon was used by Russian Old Rite Orthodox in Turkey under the EP through the 1960s on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul. When they immigrated to America, the Turkish authorities confiscated their liturgical books as historical artifacts.

My own guess is that SS. Cyril and Methodius themselves brought the Roman Canon back to the Slav mission with them becasue of the patronage they received from the Pope and this is how the Old Rite came to use it.

"Furthermore, not only are their roots museum pieces to us, but their existance within the Orthodox Church is a foreign imposition."

Actually not true of the Liturgy of St. Gregory, at least the Anaphora. Manuscripts were found on Mt. Athos that contained the Roman Canon (without Byzantine Epiclesis clumsily and unnecessarily added) inserted in the framework of the Litrugy of St. John Chrysostom. This same Liturgy with Roman Canon was used by Russian Old Rite Orthodox in Turkey under the EP through the 1960s on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul. When they immigrated to America, the Turkish authorities confiscated their liturgical books as historical artifacts.

My own guess is that SS. Cyril and Methodius themselves brought the Roman Canon back to the Slav mission with them becasue of the patronage they received from the Pope and this is how the Old Rite came to use it.

Again, what a waste of a thread. The arguments against the Western Rite are still based upon a straw-man of what WRO is imagined to be, rather than what it is. We Western Orthodox can't be anything else but Orthodox - not Roman Catholics, not Anglican Protestants, etc. We don't have to be 'Greek' either. Our rite isn't up for debate or negotiation either - no more than the continued existence of Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc.

If one really wants to know about the Western Rite of Orthodoxy - again and again, actually go to the WRO parishes, missions, monasteries. Ask the questions of the WRO rather than playing yet another game of 'the blind men and the elephant'.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

If one really wants to know about the Western Rite of Orthodoxy - again and again, actually go to the WRO parishes, missions, monasteries. Ask the questions of the WRO rather than playing yet another game of 'the blind men and the elephant'.

This would be the ideal situation but there are many people who are on here who are no where close to a parish the practices the Western Rite so they come here looking for information. As with many aspects of the internet there are many self appointed experts many different subject that they know nothing about. For the most part this thread has been a good conversation of questions and answers. There are a number of people who are participating in this thread that have experience with the Western Rite so I would characterize the discussion as "blind men and the elephant." If there is specific mis-information or bad arguments please point them out so everyone can benefit.

AristibuleGood for you!Stand strong for your rite and your Orthodoxy.But go gentle on the rest of us; there just are not enough WR parishes to do what you suggest - "come and see"I think if we all could, there would be alot more favorable attitude.Personally I wish a WR parish existed near me (closer than over 200 miles from Pittsburgh - in Wash. DC, or Delaware.

Theres one thats starting up as a mission in my area and I'm sort of prticipating in it. I dont exactly know how this will all play out culturally. I mean people from the Greek parish would definitely wonder why we would go anywhere other than a Greek parish...and dont bother explaining Antiochian to them, I'd have to conjour up something like "Einia kala kai orthodoxon, apo tin Antiochia" ...."Aaah, einai stin Mikra Asia poli konta Kostantinoupoli!" would probably be the response. Regardless of what others think, it shouldn't matter what durisdiction a parish you go to ever is, as long as its canonically Orthodox. Is being bi-ritual as a lay person or priest possible?

Brother Aidan - Washington DC? St. Gregory the Great Orthodox Christian Church, 1443 Euclid St., NW, Washington, DC. That is the same parish that produces the Western Rite Orthodox hymnal, St. Ambrose's Hymnal. http://www.stgregoryoc.org is the website.

Timos - bi-ritual is pretty common for layfolk in areas without WRO parishes. Many of our Benedictine Oblates of Christminster also attend, serve, or sing in Byzantine rite parishes. Western rite clergy concelebrate at Byzantine liturgies, and even Byzantine bishops preside over Western rite liturgies (I plan at being at just such a Pontifical Divine Liturgy this year, God willing.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

I was looking at some of the photos posted on their site of their new chapel and it doesn't really look like an WR setting. It looks more like an Eastern bishops private residential chapel or something. Why do WR people feel the need to be 'Byzantinized' or Easternized to be accepted? Actually, seeing that would turn me off from the WR rather than interest me. It seems rather confusing to have Eastern icons, eastern cross and fans, and western liturgy and chant. Why can't all these things be western but still orthodox??

I was looking at some of the photos posted on their site of their new chapel and it doesn't really look like an WR setting. It looks more like an Eastern bishops private residential chapel or something. Why do WR people feel the need to be 'Byzantinized' or Easternized to be accepted? Actually, seeing that would turn me off from the WR rather than interest me. It seems rather confusing to have Eastern icons, eastern cross and fans, and western liturgy and chant. Why can't all these things be western but still orthodox??

I've seen that too. My guess is that those may be gifts from the local Antiochian parish/cathedral. It is perfectly OK to have icons as a reredos.

WR people don't feel the need to be Byzantinized. Icons are just as Western (especially in the English tradition - ref "The Church of Our Fathers" Vol. 1-4 1849-1854 by Dr. Daniel Rock.) They are part of the universal deposit of the faith. The Ordo for the AWRV prescribes 'Romanesque' style, which is really Byzantine art in the West. Western liturgy uses fans as well - though those are probably a gift - very hard to find Western style liturgical fans, or good processional crosses anymore (anytime since the 1950s really.) Paleo-Christian style Byzantine processional crosses and fans are close enough except in detail to some of the oldest English examples still in use. With St. Gregory the Great, most likely the issue is money - the WRO isn't all that wealthy yet. That parish only got its permanent location this past year (spending about a decade in borrowed locations.)

Landon is especially right about the use of icons on a reredos - a style especially favored by Benedictines (a Benedictine altar having a reredos of paneled icons.)

I don't mind going through and handling some past misunderstandings in this thread as well - particularly about Sarum use (which we use in ROCA, along with Benedictine and English liturgy). Particularly in the flawed idea that Sarum is 'museum piece' (a fiction invented by the 'cottas and lace' Romanizing party of the Anglo-Catholic movement as an attempt at apologetic by ridicule for their own dependence on contemporary Italian fashion.) The Sarum use is a continuation of the way Western liturgy was done as expressed in the Stowe Missal, the Drummond Missal, the Sarum proper (Early and Late), which continued through the English old Catholic secular clergy and in modified form as the Jesuits use for England, Scotland, and Ireland. The first books printed again for English old Catholics at the Emancipation were Sarum - the 19th c. Irish influx into the Catholic Church there brought about changes in traditions and customs which the English old Catholics resisted (traditions and customs which the Franciscans had brought to Ireland only in the preceding century - the Irish tradition was also Sarum formerly.) The nascent Oxford movement picked up the Sarum use which was naturally the first ancestor of their Prayer Book, and missals published for the Anglo-Catholics in the 1860s - 1880s were Sarum use (first in Latin, then in English.) The use experienced a rebirth in some places across the globe, though Western Rite Orthodox are not the only ones who use Sarum. There are also some Continuing Anglicans, Old Catholics in Europe, and the occasional Roman Catholic who still use Sarum, though the Orthodox Sarum holds to certain older forms on the few changes to the right which relate to the Filioque or certain Crusader-era emphases.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

I have found the "Church of our Fathers" volumes in on-line reading form, a good thing since they originally date from the 1800's and the copy available is from 1905. So this is not likely to be found in most libraries or homes, I would wager. Would you please give some references for chapter/volume in order that I might read it for myself? Thank you

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I haven't found how they would be used in the WR today, but I did find this from New Advent, the online Catholic encyclopedia:

Quote

The flabellum, in liturgical use, is a fan made of leather, silk, parchment, or feathers intended to keep away insects from the Sacred Species and from the priest. It was in use in the sacrifices of the heathens and in the Christian Church from very early days, for in the Apostolic Constitutions, a work of the fourth century, we read (VIII, 12): "Let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a fan, made up of thin membranes, or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups". Its use was continued in the Latin Church to about the fourteenth century.

And this:

Quote

Apart from the foregoing liturgical uses, a flabellum, in the shape of a fan, later of an umbrella or canopy, was used as a mark of honour for bishops and princes. Two fans of this kind are used at the Vatican whenever the pope is carried in state on the sedia gestatoria to or from the altar or audience-chamber. Through the influence of Count Ditalmo di Brozza, the fans formerly used at the Vatican were, in 1902, presented to Mrs. Joseph Drexel of Philadelphia, U. S. A., by Leo XIII, and in return she gave a new pair to the Vatican. The old ones are exhibited in the museum of the University of Pennsylvania. They are splendid creations. The spread is formed of great ostrich plumes tipped with peacock feathers; on the sticks are the papal arms, worked in a crimson field in heavy gold, the crown studded with rubies and emeralds. St. Paul's Cathedral, London, had a fan made of peacock feathers, and York Cathedral's inventory mentions a silver handle of a fan, which was gilded and had upon it the enamelled picture of the bishop. Haymo, Bishop of Rochester (died 1352), gave to his church a fan of silver with an ivory handle.

There is something else I've been wondering, maybe one of you can tell me: was is common before VII to have a rood screen but not an altar rail?

The 'Correctness Police' may not like them, but they're Western and quite sound (as well as universal among apostolic Christian rites.) It is, admittedly, an antique use (as are banners, the lion and dragon, etc.) - but it is proper and good, especially if they have enough servers. If you can stand the download, read the note below ref. Vol. 4

Re: Ebor Academic libraries do often have "the Church of Our Fathers". I was able to study it from Inter-Library Loan through my public library (I believe it was Emory University's copy, I forget.) Relevant portions discuss the use of the Pax-brede (an icon - holy image that is venerated during worship), and the decoration of English churches with holy images. The 1905 edition has some changes, as described in the Editor's Preface. Some of Rock's scholarship was superseded (but not on that of Images, or the Fan. Vol2 and Vol. 3 do not discuss fans or icons. Vol. 1 Chap. IV p. 244 - 255 is on the use of Images. Also see Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 57 to the end of the chapter for context. Also see Vol. 4 Chap. XII p. 229 - 233 for the liturgical use of the Fan, and Vol. 4 Chap. XII p. 187-190 for the Pax-Brede, an icon liturgically venerated. Dr. Rock, being the good Counter-Reformation loyal son of Rome that he was, has some errors in his text elsewise where later Frere, Dearmer, and others produced work that corrected those errors (such as on altars.)

As for the Rood screen and altar rail - the use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation. With the rood screen, there is no need for an altar rail, and in fact one would get in the way of liturgical action. Altar rails are proper to churches without screens.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

How do you use the fans in the WR? I've never seen it done. Are they used at the same place as in the ER?

We don't use them - they're just stationed behind the altar on either side of the processional crucifix. The crucifix and fans are a set that we ordered from Greece. We're presently too small to use the fans in procession, but as we grow that's a possibility.

As for the Rood screen and altar rail - the use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation. With the rood screen, there is no need for an altar rail, and in fact one would get in the way of liturgical action. Altar rails are proper to churches without screens.

Well, by modern usage it would really be the other way around: it is the rood screen that has fallen out of purpose. A fair number of vicky churches around here recognize that by combining the two at the location generally reserved for the rail, which is what really makes sense. With the modern usage of a tripartite church in which the choir has ceased to be a clerical area, putting a screen between the nave and the choir is pretty illogical.

A rood screen came in quite handy in the WR church I came from. The clergy sat in the choir for the hours, so the screen made a nice addition. The major draw back I see for having both a roodscreen and an altar rail (that aren't combined) is that is takes up a lot of room.

Well, by modern usage it would really be the other way around: it is the rood screen that has fallen out of purpose. A fair number of vicky churches around here recognize that by combining the two at the location generally reserved for the rail, which is what really makes sense. With the modern usage of a tripartite church in which the choir has ceased to be a clerical area, putting a screen between the nave and the choir is pretty illogical.

No, it is fully logical - 'modern usage' isn't what we have, though our usage is 21st c. completely, Western and Orthodox. I'm guessing by 'modern usage' you mean Anglican, which really doesn't apply or matter to us. So, it really doesn't make sense to have both - most WRO altars follow the Romanesque plan with an open altar and the altar rail. The minority that have rood screens tend not to have altar rails as well (except where they've inherited them from others.) Again, the liturgical action is disrupted if one has both.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Not exactly because there aren't icons usually on the screen. It's usually just carved wood of nature and religious themes. Sometimes, there are full-bodied carved wooden statues...rood screen of these types can be found still in England, France,and I believe some places in Germany. As for it being Victorian, I dont think thats right because I've read in more than one book that in the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Mass used to be said behind a wooden screen (aka a rood screen).

Not exactly because there aren't icons usually on the screen. It's usually just carved wood of nature and religious themes. Sometimes, there are full-bodied carved wooden statues...rood screen of these types can be found still in England, France,and I believe some places in Germany. As for it being Victorian, I dont think thats right because I've read in more than one book that in the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Mass used to be said behind a wooden screen (aka a rood screen).

In a sense, he's right about England. Rood screens were torn out en masse during the Reformation. Many English churches got rood screens back during the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement in the Victorian era. The modern ones tend not to have pictures on them, just as the church walls were wiped clean of the old medieval painted pictures in the modern era.

Here's an example of an icon from a medieval rood screen in St. Botolph's Church in Trunch. Note the defacement of the faces by Protestant iconoclasts.

From what I've read, there are only a couple substantially intact medieval rood screens left in Britain. One is at St.Ellyw Church in Llanelieu, Wales. The church is also notable for having some surviving medieval interior wall paintings---most, of course, were whitewashed or otherwise destroyed in the Reformation.

Wish there was a better picture online. When I'm in Wales again (probably next summer or summer after next), I'll be sure to visit with my digital camera.

(Modified to add: Those openings probably would have been at least partially covered by curtains or something else.)

There are more than a few surviving screens - the point is that altar rails do not go with rood screens. Churches that had Rood screens did not also have altar rails until the Victorian period when miseducated people started placing both in the same space. If one has a Rood screen, then an altar rail isn't needed. By contrast, if one doesn't have a rood screen (like ancient Occitanian or Italian churches) then an altar rail is more normative. Rood screens grew out of an early Gallican form of the altar rail that enclosed the whole chancel including the quire.

As for the rood screen and iconstasis - not exactly the same as the rood screen encompasses the quire. This is based on a monastic model where the Quire (Choir) was usually Canons or a Monastic College of a Cathedral or Minster. Rood screens originally did have the Sacred Images (icons) on them as well. Often it is only the lower panels, and then the images on top of the beam - the Rood (crucifix) with St. Mary and St. John on either side, and a pair of angels.

In the AWRV, Rood screens are not so common (though not unheard of - does St. Benedict of Nursia have one?) - most of the parishes or missions that I have experience with have the Romanesque plan of an open altar in the apse enclosed by an altar rail with the choir outside. In ROCOR WRITE the rood screen seems to be more popular (and in fact, encouraged) though not everyone has them. Some of the spaces are too small to include a choir inside the Rood screen, but we still have them.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

An interesting church to note is St. Mark's Basilica in Venicet's covered with Byzantinue murals and architecture but has a western rood screen with carved figures before the altar. I'm so going there one day Above the church as many know are replicas of the 4 byzantine bronze horses...the real ones are in the church second floor i believe.

An interesting church to note is St. Mark's Basilica in Venicet's covered with Byzantinue murals and architecture but has a western rood screen with carved figures before the altar. I'm so going there one day Above the church as many know are replicas of the 4 byzantine bronze horses...the real ones are in the church second floor i believe.

Both St. Mark's and the 4 horses you mention were stolen from Constantinople during the crusades. They look "Byzantine" because that is what they are.

Strange that the bronze horses were taken from the Hippodrome, the activities of which the Orthodox Church had been perenially against. Accordingly, the horse's aren't Byzantine but most likely were made by Lysippos for Alexander the Great. Nero had them installed in Rome, and it was St. Constantine that moved them to Constantinople along with many other pre-Christian artifacts from across the Empire. The horses would have been about 6 centuries old by that time - so, pagan Greek rather than Byzantine. The real oddity should be that the Venetians installed them on a Church.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Do you mean artifacts and icons inside it or the actual building? That would've taken hundreds of ships sailing back and forth to ship the building piece by piece from there to Venice. Or do you mean the iconography and style itself is (clearly) Byzantine

As for the horses statues...I've read once somewhere (and I dont have my source on me) that Hagia Sophia had hundreds of statues INSIDE and OUT, so even though statuary was not part of orthodox worship maybe Hagia Sophia is one exception to the "orthodox norm".

There are more than a few surviving screens - the point is that altar rails do not go with rood screens. Churches that had Rood screens did not also have altar rails until the Victorian period when miseducated people started placing both in the same space. If one has a Rood screen, then an altar rail isn't needed. By contrast, if one doesn't have a rood screen (like ancient Occitanian or Italian churches) then an altar rail is more normative. Rood screens grew out of an early Gallican form of the altar rail that enclosed the whole chancel including the quire.

Perhaps so, but the structure of the rood screen as a rule prohibits its use as an altar rail. In general, the screen serves to separate the choir from the nave, thereby making the former into a sort of subchapel. Therefore (for instance) at All Saints Convent in Catonsville the screen separates the choir (used by the nuns) from the nave (the rest of us). The altar rail, however, has a purpose besides division of space: it is the place to kneel for receiving communion. Therefore their chapel also has such a rail.

I can't speak for Catholicism, but as far as the Anglicans are concerned, the rail "came first"-- in that the rail was already an established fixture before Gothic rivivalists brought back the screen.

They didn't have to 'bring back' the screen, it survived in many places. Many rood screens are fitted with gates, which served to demark the quire and chancel as sacred space throughout the week.

The altar rail didn't 'come first' as the normative way of receiving communion is at the Rood upon a prayer desk covered by the houseling cloth. We receive communion that way in our chapels that have Rood screens. Again - Anglicans aren't concerned here, it is Western Rite Orthodox practice, not Anglican practice.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

I find all of this interresting. Are there some books on church architectural developement in the west?

I'm also wondering where the gospel is traditionally read from. At St. Benedict's where we had a rood screen, the gospel readings were done from under the rood. At St. Peter's where they only have the altar rail they were done the way I was more used to- in the middle of the nave.

Timos -- when did you last visit? Every time I've gone, they've read the gospel from where Landon described.

August, for their WRV Conference where I learned a whole lote about the WR. they did a Funeral Mass and a regular High Gregorian Mass. At the Funeral Mass, the Rite was Tikhon so (if I recall correctly) the Gospel was read as you described but I remember for the St. Greg Mass, the Gospel was read facing the altar towards the Gospel Side.

The times I've visited St. Peter's, I recall the reading from the Nave as well. Landon is right about St. Benedict's - when one has a rood then one reads the Gospel from a station just under the rood (the entrance to the chancel.) When we do so, it is facing the northwest - I'm not sure if St. Benedict's reads it in that manner towards the northwest or facing to the West as some later English use folks have done.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

They didn't have to 'bring back' the screen, it survived in many places. Many rood screens are fitted with gates, which served to demark the quire and chancel as sacred space throughout the week.

Well, "survived" is perhaps a misstatement. It survived as an architectural feature, to be sure, in places; but did it survive as an integral part of the liturgy? Surely for the Anglicans the answer must be "perhaps in local custom in a few places, but in general, no." When I read discussion of the rood screen, I am always struck by the variety of purposes and acts ascribed to it. I do not gain the impression of a fixed and regular feature, but rather something whose usage varied in time and place.

Quote

The altar rail didn't 'come first' as the normative way of receiving communion is at the Rood upon a prayer desk covered by the houseling cloth. We receive communion that way in our chapels that have Rood screens. Again - Anglicans aren't concerned here, it is Western Rite Orthodox practice, not Anglican practice.

And who is the authority for what is western? After all, there does come a point at which the rood screen itself is an innovation. If you choose to go around the remainder of western development and fish in the past, you can come up with precedents for nearly anything you would like to do; but the falsification of those precedents by the historical pattern of usage is as much the rule as the exception. Take the altar rail itself. In modern usage in the western churches, it is not only a division in the church, but a place to kneel. And its removal is more about the latter than the former; when you look at modern rail-less churches, the spatial division tends to remain, and the removal of the rail is strongly coupled with discouraging kneeling. The spatial division then tends to turn around and convert the sanctuary from a walled off sacred space into a stage for sacred performance, but that's not an intended consequence, as a rule.

Let's go back to your original statement. You said, "(T)he use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation." Well, whose Vicky churches are we taking about anyway? Not Orthodox, Western Rite churches, but Anglican churches. And it's just the history of the thing that rails were by that time an established feature of Anglican architecture, and that rood screens were reintroduced as part of the Victorian Gothic Revival. And since practice had evolved for several hundred years without them, Victorian architects who put them where medieval practice dictated also found that they needed to put in a rail as well, because that was what (then) modern practice required. It's a little hard to claim as an innovation at that point what was in truth long established practice.

If modern Orthodox WR churches want to do something else: well, whether that's fine or not is beside the point. Their choices do not mean anything for those "wrongheaded" Victorians except insofar as they are the descendants of those Victorians (which I would argue they are, but that's a dispute for another time). IF the OWR doesn't owe anything to Anglican practice, then the lack of obligation is surely mutual.

No, I haven't been to the one in Mesquite. The one is Tyler is the one I've been to that uses the Liturgy of St. Gregory. St. Benedict's is the one that on Easter will read it from the sanctuary with the deacon and priest.

If you are still reading this thread at this point, you may be interrested in subscribing to CREDO, if you don't already. It is a bi-monthly publication that is about thirty pages and cost $15 a year. You can subscribe by sending your check to St. Nicholas's Orthodox Church in Spokane, WA.

I hope you don't mid me asking as I think this was mentioned before, but what is Credo and what type of articles does it publish? WR, yes?

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Most of it is WR specific. Some of it is more general to Orthodoxy or even just Christian. They have the Calander in them with the saints days and the fast and abstinance days. And it has parish updates.

Surely for the Anglicans the answer must be "perhaps in local custom in a few places, but in general, no."

So, yes - it would be a survival. Survival does not depend on the majority or the whole. And, again - more importantly it survived in the rubrics and architecture belonging to the English old Catholics (from whom the Ritualist Anglicans later learned.) So, again not primarily an Anglican issue but a Catholic issue.

Quote

I do not gain the impression of a fixed and regular feature, but rather something whose usage varied in time and place.

Again - it is in the rubrics. For our tradition (again, being Catholic and not particularly 'Anglican' in sofar as Anglican by and large is not liturgical) it does have the quality of a fixed and regular feature in that liturgical action is rubrically fixed within the framework of the roodscreen as a station for procession, the Liturgy of the Word, the Communion, etc.

Quote

If you choose to go around the remainder of western development and fish in the past, you can come up with precedents for nearly anything you would like to do; but the falsification of those precedents by the historical pattern of usage is as much the rule as the exception.

The authority is the tradition - local and universal. It doesn't have anything to do with 'innnovation' or 'fish in the past' or 'falsification of precedents'. It has to do with the requirements for a liturgical tradition according to its rites and ceremonies.

Quote

Take the altar rail itself.

I guess in your definition of what 'western churches' are - but that doesn't apply to the Church. The place to kneel for communion in a church with the rood screen as a liturgical feature is at the communion bench placed before the rood, and not at the subdeacon's step. The sacred space is enclosed by the rood screen as well, so again your worries don't apply to Western Orthodox praxis.

Quote

"(T)he use of altar rails in churches with Rood screens is a Victorian innovation." Well, whose Vicky churches are we taking about anyway? Not Orthodox, Western Rite churches, but Anglican churches.

No they were not Anglican features - but Catholic features that some Anglicans began to mimic in the latter 19th c. Anglican churches were typically without a rail - the faithful sat around 'the table' and received there - not at a rail or a prayer bench. When some Anglicans began to affect Catholic architecture to go with adopted Catholic liturgy and ceremonial, the conflation of altar rail and rood screen from disparate liturgical uses was effected (from what I can tell, likely borrowed from churches in northern France and the Low Countries where an altar rail was added post-Tridentine to churches that formerly only had Rood screens or a Rood-beam within the chancel arch. ) The combination of features was most certainly *not* at a time when receiving at the altar rail was 'long established' in the Anglican communion.

Quote

If modern Orthodox WR churches want to do something else: well, whether that's fine or not is beside the point. ... IF the OWR doesn't owe anything to Anglican practice, then the lack of obligation is surely mutual.

Yet it is entirely the point - the thread is about WRO, not Anglicans of any stripe. The Victorian argument does apply though, though few are descendents of 'those Victorians'. The fact is, we most often have inherited, acquired, or make use of church spaces not designed particularly for our liturgy - including Victorian or Victorian-informed architecture. In our Western rite, it is a point of discussion - that the altar rail hinders the action of a Solemn Mass. The Antiochian Western Rite, not so much (as their ceremonial is typically after Lamburn or Fortescue) - where the rood screen is not so often a liturgical feature. 'Lack of obligation' on the part of Anglicans? Of course - who ever said otherwise? But, we don't owe it to 'the Anglicans' - it is simply Western Catholic returned to pre-schism faith - we got it from the same place the Anglicans re-acquired it from - the Western Catholic tradition. In our case, holding the the same faith as the Undivided Church, ie the Orthodox East. (And go ahead and make the argument - WRO is far more Old Catholic in origin than 'Anglican', and today its members are also again more often than not of an origin other than 'Anglican'. The Victorian relation has almost entirely to do with liturgical scholarship and the translation of our ancient rites into English, our venacular as for millions of other Christians and human beings.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

This area is thick with old Anglican churches; a fair number are 1692 parishes. Near my high school there is an unmodified colonial church, with box pews and a triple decker pulpit even. And not surprisingly, it has a rail. So does every other Episcopal church nearby-- the closest example I can think of is the cathedral in Philly, which was recently wrecknovated.

I've just looked at the 1789 rubrics, and other than a direction at one point for the minister to stand at the north end of the table and to stand close to it during the consecration, and directions for the confession and reception of communion to be done kneeling, I see no rubrication of posture or position.

Fishing for "traditions" among the few English churches that retained their screen is, at best, the elevation of local custom to universal rule. Even then I have to say that I'm not at all convinced of the survival of any custom to use a prayer desk set at the screen or any other similar arrangement. What I definitely see in the USA, however, is that screens were unknown until their Victorian revival by the Anglicans.

I have to say that where an Anglican-based liturgy is being used in OWR churches, it's going to be a bit hard to cut the Anglicans out of the picture entirely. I don't have as good a picture of the origins of the other rite, but I have to suspect that it has its origin in some modern Roman rite. Well, okay, but then to wave Fortescue at that and then jump back four or five or six or ten centuries back from that is extremely uncompelling as tradition, because there is simply far too much tradition that has to dismissed to make such a leap. It is manifestly picking and choosing; and if that's what you want your tradition to be, okay; but complaining about what the Victorians did wrong in such a context is irrelevant to all, because they aren't in that context. You're using them as a whipping boy in the same manner as the modernist wrecknovators did.

Of course, Fortescue's church had a baldichin, not a screen-- but then, that would have been typical Roman practice of the era....

I've just looked at the 1789 rubrics, and other than a direction at one point for the minister to stand at the north end of the table and to stand close to it during the consecration, and directions for the confession and reception of communion to be done kneeling, I see no rubrication of posture or position.

The altar rail was still a later addition. During the 1700s and early 19th c. The people *sat* around the 'table' while the priest (minister by some Prayer Books) stood at the north end. It was only later in the 19th c. that the table (again called altar) was separated from the laity. Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and, even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

Quote

Fishing for "traditions" among the few English churches that retained their screen is, at best, the elevation of local custom to universal rule.

Because again, it isn't 'fishing for traditions' - it owes to the preservation by the Catholics of that period, not the Anglicans. Besides, something can't be universal if there is an exception. The rood screen is the architectural norm for the approved liturgical rites and ceremonies of our WRO tradition in the Russian Church. The Victorian 'revival' by the Anglicans was a borrowing of still existing Roman Catholic tradition (see JJ Overbeck http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/overbeck/catholic1866.html as many of the Ritualists toured Continental Europe towards that end (even the 'Sarum' or 'English use' party were finding and adopting the same uses still in use in Northern France, the Low Countries, etc. at that time.) So, as Overbeck puts it - Roman Catholicism purged of its errors. (Of course, we take Overbeck seriously - the only error I believe he made would be in his understanding of the controversy surrounding Parker. If you can understand Overbeck's pov, you could understand ours - and why we can't be Episcopalians or Roman Catholics, but only Western Orthodox. )

Quote

I have to say that where an Anglican-based liturgy is being used in OWR churches, it's going to be a bit hard to cut the Anglicans out of the picture entirely.

The adaptations done by both the Antiochians and Russians are to formerly (no-longer) Anglican liturgies that with their restorations have more in common with Catholic liturgy than Anglican liturgy. What makes them 'Anglican' for the most part is keeping particulars belonging to the English uses of the Roman rite. Again, not things properly 'Anglican' though truly English. IIRC, Michno is still standard ceremonial in ECUSA where the parish tends towards 'high'? AWRV doesn't use Michno, and I know we don't.

Quote

I don't have as good a picture of the origins of the other rite, but I have to suspect that it has its origin in some modern Roman rite.

The 'other rite' is the traditional Roman rite in the vernacular (usually Benedictine or Sarum use.)

Quote

Well, okay, but then to wave Fortescue at that and then jump back four or five or six or ten centuries back from that is extremely uncompelling as tradition, because there is simply far too much tradition that has to dismissed to make such a leap.

No one is 'jumping centuries back' - the Church weighed the received traditions in their particulars - that in error was excised, that not contrary to the faith was retained. And, again - Fortescue and Lamburn is a description of the Antiochian use - I'm not Antiochian, though I also support their uses.

Quote

It is manifestly picking and choosing; and if that's what you want your tradition to be, okay; but complaining about what the Victorians did wrong in such a context is irrelevant to all, because they aren't in that context. You're using them as a whipping boy in the same manner as the modernist wrecknovators did.

You misunderstand and falsely accuse. Its not about using the Victorians as 'whipping boys' - it is simply a recognition that much they did was more from zeal than from knowledge, and affects us due to existing architecture which must be adapted as best as we can. Also, its not about 'wanting a tradition it is the tradtion we have handed down. We don't just get to 'choose' anything - it relies upon the Bishops and the tradition preserved by the communities recieved into the Church. Many ARWV parishes do have baldacchinos - it is appropriate to the ceremonial they have approved, as are altar rails. Our (ROCOR Western Rite) chapels by contrast where purpose built have the rood screen as a liturgical feature after the approved ceremonial for our rites. Part of the point being that most often we WRO don't get much of a choice - spaces formerly belonging to Lutherans, Catholics, Syriacs, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. have to be adapted - often with the constraints that the fabric cannot be changed. IOW, the ideal is often just that - the ideal for future construction and/or renovation. The attempt to make 'guilt by association' with the wreckovationists is just pitiful though - no similarities nor mutual regard between either party. (But, speaking of Anglicans - the Anglicans in America, the AMiA, appear to be introducting the English 1662 BCP service in lieu of the American 1979. That might be an appropriate topic for another part of the site - but not Liturgy on an Orthodox Christianity board.)

« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 12:19:47 PM by Aristibule »

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

The altar rail was still a later addition. During the 1700s and early 19th c. The people *sat* around the 'table' while the priest (minister by some Prayer Books) stood at the north end. It was only later in the 19th c. that the table (again called altar) was separated from the laity. Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

I don't know if mediÃƒÂ¦val English churches had altar rails.

'Amongst the laity lengthwise' between the old chancel's choir stalls as shown here is what happened in 1552 and AFAIK IIRC lasted until William Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Charles I in the 1600s. He put the table back into the apse altarwise (against the wall) and put a rail in front of it (which is why American colonial churches have rails as Keble notes) but the old instruction about standing at the north end, which made sense in the lengthwise arrangement but not altarwise, was retained. So you had the priest standing at the left side of the altar facing the congregation sideways! The C19 Ritualists/second wave of Anglo-Catholics did the sensible thing and started using the altarwise arrangement for eastward celebrations (priest and people facing the altar/'priest's back to the people' like traditional Roman and like Eastern Orthodox practice).

The rule was cassock, surplice, scarf and academic hood (mediÃƒÂ¦val choir dress as Ari and Keble know) for actually conducting the service - Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer or Communion - but an academic gown for preaching, whence I'm told the old Episcopal custom of the hymn after the Gospel at Communion comes. It was a time-filler while the vicar changed clothes!

The high churchmen including the Tractarians/original Anglo-Catholics strictly followed this rule of vesture; Ari has a point that it lapsed in other places. (So you may have seen academic robes all the time in church or even the vicar in lay attire?)

WRO comes in two versions, modified pre-Vatican II RC liturgy and, much more often (most WROs are ex-Episcopalians), modified Book of Common Prayer Anglican liturgy. Both are slightly byzantinised (no filioque and an epiklesis added). The latter is catholicised as well per both the Russian Holy Synod's suggestions circa 1900 for adapting the BCP for Orthodox use and also high-Episcopal (both Anglo-Catholic and high-Central) practice pretty much as it had come to be in the 1930s-1950s when the Ritualists' influence peaked and before modern liturgical revision. So I imagine an old-fashioned Episcopal service like from that period and a WRO service would be nearly indistinguishable to a visitor. I understand from Ari and others that WRO does not claim to be a re-enactment of pre-schism practice; it obviously is not. It takes the best of RC and Anglican practice, nearly all of which (as I've described) I'm guessing is compatible with Orthodox beliefs, and uses them, more so than many modern RCs and modern Anglicans.

Are you certain you are not seeing 19th c. additions? Colonial churches were not 'museums' during the 19th c. Don't underestimate the influence of the Ritualists on the 'house use' even of late 19th c./early 20th c. Episcopal churches. Their influence was to return the altar to the apse (and reoriented) - where formerly it had been 'amongst the laity' lengthwise, with the communicants sitting around it (and, even the surplice and gown disdained as 'papist'.)

I cannot be sure of anything since I wasn't there in 1776. I have found reference to a restoration in the 1950s (by then the church hadn't see regular use for seventy years; they built a new vicky gothic thing in town). The building is square; the altar sits under a big Palladian window on the east end, with the pulpit et al. centered on the north wall. The box pews fill pretty much everything else, and those along the rear (west) wall face towards the east, while those on the other walls face each other. There is a gallery on the south and west walls.

How much of this is an "improvement" on the original colonial layout is of course open to question. The box pews, however, are original, and it's hard to see how the altar could have been anywhere but where it is now. Was there or was there not a rail? If you trust the restorers, then yes. If you don't, then who knows? I have found reference in HABS/HAER documents to rails pre-1800 (e.g. here). A characteristic form seen in these parts is a shortish brick Georgian box with two doors on the "west" end, corresponding to the pair of aisles running through the pews. Putting the altar among the pews in these buildings is impossible, and the altars were always in the "east" (additionally evidenced by the gallery in the west end of Christ Church Oakland Mills, less than a mile from where I sit). In general I see a great lack of uniformity of form in colonial churches, but it's quite clear that by the end of the 1700s the cross-ways non-east-oriented form had died off. That's a good bit before the Victorian gothicizers, though.

It is abundantly clear that in the Victorian period Episcopal churches pretty much without exception had rails. I continue to doubt the assertion that they first appeared at that time, but even so, the point remains that in the larger context of the period, praxis essentially dictated its presence. No such obligation attended the screen; it was introduced, with the gothic revival, because the ideal of the gothic church included it. The variety of positions for it, not to mention its more usual absence, testifies to their lack of consensus as to how it fit into the fabric. The rail, by contrast, is utterly regular in its form and position. So it's impossible for me to see the screen as the norm and the rail as the abberation, in that context.

The rule was cassock, surplice, scarf and academic hood (mediÃƒÂ¦val choir dress as Ari and Keble know) for actually conducting the service - Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer or Communion - but an academic gown for preaching, whence I'm told the old Episcopal custom of the hymn after the Gospel at Communion comes.

- sure, according to the Ornaments Rubric, but it was not generally followed at any period in the history of the Protestant Church of England, Episcopal Church of Scotland, etc. Even to wear the gown was scandal and brought cries of 'Popery!'

Quote

WRO comes in two versions, modified pre-Vatican II RC liturgy and, much more often (most WROs are ex-Episcopalians), modified Book of Common Prayer Anglican liturgy. Both are slightly byzantinised (no filioque and an epiklesis added). The latter is catholicised as well per both the Russian Holy Synod's suggestions circa 1900 for adapting the BCP for Orthodox use and also high-Episcopal (both Anglo-Catholic and high-Central) practice pretty much as it had come to be in the 1930s-1950s when the Ritualists' influence peaked and before modern liturgical revision

First: I don't believe we have more than anecdotal evidence on your part that most WROs are ex-Episcopalians. The origins and growth of the movement suggest otherwise. Yes, some are ex-Episcopalians but not 'most'. Secondly: WRO does not come in 'two versions'. Your descriptions might apply to the AWRV, but not to our other communities which have Gallican, Roman rite in various uses, and the English Use (unlike anything the ECUSA has ever approved.) Only the Gallican has Byzantine elements, the rest are entirely Western - the restored epiclesis (not an Eastern epiklesis) comes from the Western liturgical tradition. You can ignore it, smear it as Byzantinization - but that's what it is ... Western epiclesis, Western sans filioque.

Quote

...the point remains that in the larger context of the period, praxis essentially dictated its presence. No such obligation attended the screen; it was introduced, with the gothic revival, because the ideal of the gothic church included it.

No - the point remains that what Episcopalians did with liturgical features has no bearing on why we have rood screens and find them incompatible with having an altar rail. Because the rood screen at the chancel by medieval law demarques the 'sacred space', specifically the area of responsibility for the priest - outside the chancel is the responsibility of the laity. Our liturgical tradition - ritual, ceremonial, and ornamentation dictate the presence of a rood screen as part of the liturgical fabric of our churches. And, the original point - having both rood screen and altar rail gets in the way of the proper celebration of the Solemn Mass. Again - note the topic, it isn't 'Episcopalians' but 'Western Rite Orthodox'.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

No - the point remains that what Episcopalians did with liturgical features has no bearing on why we have rood screens and find them incompatible with having an altar rail.

Welllllll, are there any WR churches in this country with a screen? Looking about, I haven't seen any.

And I think you have forgotten what you originally asserted: that those Victorians made a mistake by putting rails and screens in the same buildings and ought to have omitted the rail. Those Victorians were, of course, Anglicans, and those Anglicans in the USA had no surviving rood screens to work with. As far as I can see, the rail was an established feature by the time they got to work, so it is hard not to understand what they did as adding screens to churches which they already knew were going to have rails.

The division by the screen into an outer and inner space is so obvious it needs no law to create it. But the question is whether the choir area should be so included. If the choir is so small that it holds only the clergy, then it is essentially subsumed into the sanctuary and the "rail or not to rail" question as division of the space is eliminated. But if it holds what in current usage we call the choir, then two issues arise. First, it tends to produce a "church within a church" structure (which indeed was what it was for in the first place) which may or may not be desirable. Second, it then raises the issue of whether the sanctuary proper needs division from the choir. What I see without exception in the parish photos is they do see the need for some sort of division at that point, even if it's not with a rail.

None of this has to do with what denomination is involved. It strictly has to do with how you adapt the form and appointments of a medieval church to modern use. We've reached a point where this "tradition" is nothing more than a set of notions about how to make this adaptation. That's fine, in its way, but then the implication of some sort of historical continuity is pretty much a fantasy, unless it traces back through the places these people came from. The various parish histories testify the ubiquity of Episcopal origins, and at that point I see the tradition tracing back through those Victorians.

Welllllll, are there any WR churches in this country with a screen? Looking about, I haven't seen any.

Yes, there are. I know of at least one in the AWRV (in Texas). For ROCOR WRO purpose-built, yes as well (though its not a grand screen, and the chancel is so small no choir could fit in it.) Other ROCOR missions also have them - even if they are simply a doorway in a wall with the cross above the lintel. (Our Benedictine monastery might not - I can't recall. Then again, they are Benedictine in use.)

Quote

And I think you have forgotten what you originally asserted:

No, I haven't - and to remind you, the assertion is that they were *miseducated*. If one has an altar rail because their liturgical tradition requires it (the American tradition for Episcopalians did develop so) then the rood screen isn't needed. There were of course American churches built with rood screens, but not as a liturgical feature. In such a case the rood screen was simply Anglophilia - old churches in England have them, isnt that nice, lets have one too. Some very few American churches had the screen and knew what it was for (Alcuin Club, unfortunately had a smaller influence in America than some of us would have liked. Of course, some of us WRO admire them for the work of their members in liturgical scholarship, ornamentation, and as advocates of similar ceremonial. Not for much else though.) The fact is, Episcopalian liturgy and ceremonial needs the altar rail, so it exists. It did not need the rood screen, so they were rare. Their existence is purely due to the two circumstances mentioned above (either Anglophilia or the rarer propoponents of English Use.) Part of my claim, implicit in my original statement, is that if they were properly educated they would have only built rood screens if they adopted the proper liturgy and ceremonial. My own pov, of course, is that to be educated on the matter that they would have been something just like Western Orthodoxy.

Quote

But the question is whether the choir area should be so included.

Sorry, but that just isn't an issue for us - it might be for Episcopalians. Our WRO answer is a solid yes - the choir *is* included. We don't have the post-VII practice of 'concelebration', so the choir is where 'concelebrating' clergy are (in surplice and stole.) The tradition (which includes the medieval laws, which existed because of the ecclesiastical tradition) is that the quire is sacred space. The ultimate reason, which we WRO are consciously aware of, is that the quire is a monastic feature. So, yes it is desireable in WRO - though Episcopalians as another religion have their own feelings which pertain to their own use, though not to ours. Again and again, it matters only for WRO as we use buildings constructed for Episcopalian worship (or Lutheran, Roman Catholics, Syriac, Methodist) and must adapt them to our worship (whether the use of such space is permanent, temporary, or occasional has some bearing on how much the fabric can be changed - other considerations also apply. The AWRV has its own standards, as do we - which is why we have such things as our own Ordo, Customary, etc.)

Quote

None of this has to do with what denomination is involved. It strictly has to do with how you adapt the form and appointments of a medieval church to modern use.

Whether you like it or not (and I see you don't) it absolutely does have to do whether one is speaking about their denomination, or whether they are speaking about the Church Visible. It isn't about 'adapting a form' either - we use the form according to its proper and original use.

Quote

That's fine, in its way, but then the implication of some sort of historical continuity is pretty much a fantasy, unless it traces back through the places these people came from. The various parish histories testify the ubiquity of Episcopal origins, and at that point I see the tradition tracing back through those Victorians.

Implication? No - explicit, and no fantasy. Western Rite Orthodox are Western Catholics, not in communion or belief connected to Protestantism. So, a continuity of *Catholic* tradition - and again I'll point out that the origins are *English Catholicism* not American Episcopalianism (Noting, the Oxford Movement began a scarce 30 years before Western Orthodoxy, and in fact as a concept Western Orthodoxy was in fact older.) Whether a Protestant Episcopalian restores portions of the worship, or we Western Orthodox restore all of it as is right for worship (Orthodox) - there is still a continuity. Our claims to continuity also are due to our being far closer in liturgical and theological agreement with those who existed before the Anglican Communion (in fact, as being identical on our part with those in the first millenium as to the absolutes.) As for the parish histories, no - they aren't 'ubiquitous' as to Episcopal origins. Not *one* of our missions or monasteries is Episcopalian in origin. Many in the AWRV are not either (but rather Old Catholic or Lutheran in origin.) Just off hand, I know for sure of 8 parishes not Episcopalian in origin in the AWRV - from what I do know they have, that is about a third of their numbers? As a fact, WRO historically and at present are not Episcopalian in origin (the origins are largely Old Catholic, and there are no numbers as to 'origins' - but only in America would any likely be ECUSA in origins.) That claim is one you and others will have to put away - it isn't 'only Episcopalians', 'ubiquitous', or anything else of the sort. Sure, there are many of Episcopalian origin, but of the sort that wouldn't have stayed Episcopalians. The recommendations of the Liturgical Commitee of the Russian Synod in 1907 were only begun due to Western Christians wanting to restore visible unity with what they believed to be the Church (Orthodoxy) - if they believed that the PECUSA was it, there would have been no initiative for St. Tikhon to respond to. The facts of those existing parishes from 1977 onwards in the Antiochian Patriarchate exist for the same reasons - the PECUSA is not where they belonged, either in liturgy, praxis, morality, or for any other reason (as a side-note, a few of those had already left the ECUSA for the PNCC, or other groups before becoming Orthodox. There are also some AWRV missions that began as collections of 'orphan' Western Christians and not as a 'converting parish'.) I'll point out, if you read Overbeck - corporate reunion was never the basis of WRO. The idea was always 'individual by individual, stone by stone, parish by parish' - not limited to Anglicans, Episcopalians or any other group.

I'll make a counter-charge of 'fantasy' - particularly in the way of Episcopalian self-assessment as to their own identity, claims to spiritual or temporal authority, ownership of English/Scottish/American heritage or leadership, etc. Neither the COE or ECUSA *ever* had unified spiritual leadership over Western Christians in our countries. The whining about Western Rite Orthodoxy (which has gone on at least 140 years) seems to be more out of jealousy and particularly uncharitable - especially towards us Western Christians who would have no spiritual home otherwise - noting that the Orthodox Church *is* our natural and promised home. It is also disrespectful towards the bulk of the Orthodox Church, disrespectful of its claims to being the visible Church of Christ in toto. These are Absolutes (ie, generalized principles) that can be illustrated by the particulars. In example, no liturgy that is legally in use in the Anglican communion is used by Western Rite Orthodox (no 1979 American BCP or ASB or CW or 1662 English BCP, etc.) Lex orandi, lex credendi in our case means that how we worship is not acceptable to Episcopalians or Anglicans (either in its exclusivity vs. 'comprehensiveness' or in its Orthodox elements.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

I do not interpret your original statement as implying anything about "miseducation", but I think you have hit closer to the mark with some of your remarks here. I think we agree that they weren't really thinking liturgically when they included them, and the English themselves were just as guilty. But "Anglophilia" is just not a good explanation.

The problem goes back to Gothic revival itself. Why revive it? Well, partly because it was (and still is) seen as the characteristic Western ecclesiastical style. But more importantly, it was revived out of a nostalgia, longing, or what-have-you for medieval piety and its omnipresence in medieval life. It was a very romantic relationship to the past, for both good and ill. For good, because such buildings made material the godly desires of their designers and re-established contact with the past; but for ill, because like all passions it fomented the cross contamination of emotion and reason.

I suspect that the main reason that Gothic revival churches got screens is because original Gothic churches had them. So I don't think the problem was education, but rather being blinded by allegiance to the superiority of Gothic style to the point of not questioning the relevance of its various details. I'd be more inclined to ascribe it to unclear or incomplete thinking rather than to a lack of education.

We also seem to agree on the connection between the choir and monasticism. But that simply leads right to the problem: where there are no monastics, what does the feature mean? Gothic revival is inevitably faced with the issue that much of the medieval church culture has passed on and is not so easily revived as by erecting a building.

And another issue is that conversion itself is a profoundly romantic act, again both for good and ill. Convert mentality is an expression of it.

As for the connections of these parishes with their Episcopalian pasts: one need but look at their websites. While the one which claims a founding date in the 1800s is perhaps an extreme case, it does not surprise me that "Episcopal Church" appears in the first sentence of nearly every parish history I found. They are, by my reading, heavily invested in picturing themselves as purified versions of their own institutional past. I am simply finding it impossible to square your claims in this regard with what I can see for myself.

Let me conclude by saying that I cannot object to the notion that the WR parishes cannot devise their own praxis. It's the notion that I or anyone else-- even someone who is Orthodox-- has some intellectual obligation to view these decisions as anything but present day decisions prompted by present day concerns.

The issues you have with the Gothic do apply to the wider adoption of the style by Anglicans, but the Catholic origins of the Gothic Revival have different reasoning. Pugin and Ruskin are not of one mind. Pugin's sense of the Gothic was in reference to the relevance of his details. But, as to unclear or incomplete thinking, sure - but I still see that as a product of miseducation (not lack of education.)

Quote

We also seem to agree on the connection between the choir and monasticism. But that simply leads right to the problem: where there are no monastics, what does the feature mean?

It means that the ethos is inherently monastic - monastic being the Apostolic life. In a way, evangelical and charismatic as opposed to latitudinarianism. It isn't 'Gothic as culture' but 'Gothic as theological tradition'. This has to do also with the question of 'mediaeval theology', which has not passed on - Orthodoxy is mediaeval theology, and I mean that only in the positive sense. At the university, the term 'modern Christianity' is indeed used for the majority position of the Anglican church and much else in mainstream Protestantism or post-Vatican II Catholicism (though the latter still has plenty of 'mediaeval theology' which is having a bit of a renaissance under Pope Benedict XVI.) A colleague of mine, Peter Farrington, addressed a letter on the same topic to one of my professors. The gist is that there are *many* of us Christians (Western Christians as well) for whom 'mediaeval theology' is their living 21st c. tradition, and for whom 'modern theology' does not represent progress or advancement.

But, back to the point of the monastic ethos. It is something where some Western Rite Orthodox agree with a certain 20th c. Anglican historian (I forget his name) as to the influences on the English tradition (of which Anglicanism is historically apart.) He begins with Celtic monasticism, and then also the Benedictines, Austin Canons, Cistercians - all monastic influences which gave a very 'monastic' character to the spiritual life of English Catholics. Where we depart, of course, is where both the Protestant, Enlightenment, and secularization of Catholicism affect the English tradition. We agree on many of the same problems in the Church historically, and even with ideas such as ad fontes, but our solutions are quite different. Those solutions, of course, are based upon doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity for us.

Quote

And another issue is that conversion itself is a profoundly romantic act, again both for good and ill. Convert mentality is an expression of it.

I think that is a rather sweeping statement - not all conversions are of similiar quality nor made for the same reasons. Some conversions (including my own) were profoundly rational. "Convert mentality", of course, is not a guaranteed condition for any convert - and not all as common as some think. In fact, I think it has become a boogey-man of sorts, where all converts of any sort are considered as irrational fanatics or worse.

Quote

As for the connections of these parishes with their Episcopalian pasts: one need but look at their websites. ... I am simply finding it impossible to square your claims in this regard with what I can see for myself.

Likely because you are only reading parish histories available from the few parishes that have converted from Episcopalianism. Since they come from crisis, it tends to be a more important part of their public narrative - not so important for those from Old Catholic backgrounds. It is probably also because the parishes and missions that lack websites tend to be those that did not come from the Episcopalian conversions. Most missions do not have active websites nor parish histories (there are only a few online.) I should note - it is unfair to count St. Mark's, as they came to us from the PNCC. The same goes for other bodies, such as in Florida or Australia that came from the Continuum - any criticism then would also have to extend to the Old Catholics and Continuing Anglicans.

Quote

Let me conclude by saying that I cannot object to the notion that the WR parishes cannot devise their own praxis. It's the notion that I or anyone else-- even someone who is Orthodox-- has some intellectual obligation to view these decisions as anything but present day decisions prompted by present day concerns.

I'll ask for some clarification: are you agreeing that WR parishes cannot devise their own praxis? If so - again, yes - we depend on not only the liturgical guidance of our bishops as is normative for Orthodox. We also have canonical guidelines for what we can and cannot have (the Russian synodal decisions on Overbeck's mass, the Liturgical Comittee of the Russian Synod's guidelines on the adaption of BCP services in answer to St. Tikhon's request, the various 20th c. Patriarchal edicts providing the basis and guidelines for Western Rite practice, etc.)

I'm not sure about 'anything but present day decisions prompted by present day concerns'. Such is true on a certain level - the mortal facts of human lifetimes. But I do not believe it recognizes the generational and perennial nature of the idea. The seeds are far older than the sprouting (and we haven't even got so far as 'blossoming'.) So, yes - present day decisions as far as the salvation of individual souls is concerned, but present day concerns only in that many of the concerns have existed for centuries. The present day decisions were only possible at the present day because conditions finally became favorable. That is, it took until the last century for the people on both sides to be in the right place to act on the concerns.

As to what those 'present day concerns' are, I'm not sure what all you mean. We can discuss them if you like - I suspect the list might actually be longer than you might expect.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Eh, I don't think that your argument necessarily proves the point; he may not have worked on the doctrinal "explicitness" if he didn't think it was necessary, but it doesn't mean that it isn't necessary now, or that it wasn't necessary then.

It would be akin to the argument about the Holy Spirit being "omoousios" in the Creed - why did generations of fathers, and 5 other Ecumenical Councils as well as countless Endemousa Synods and local councils not add it? They felt it wasn't necessary. But one can argue effectively that it belongs in the Creed if the Creed is to be the one-stop, all-inclusive definition of the necessary core of our belief.

So too, the WR liturgy may need to be more "doctrinally explicit" (I don't know - I haven't read it) even though St. Tikhon went over it with a fine-tooth comb; or it may not. If someone wanted to do a textual study here on OC.net of the WR liturgy, then maybe the issues could get hashed out.

To give a concrete example, in the Tridentine mass the celebrant refers to the "merits of Thy Saints whose relics lie here," and the Orthodox DL of St. Gregory says "prayers of Thy Sainst whose relics lie here."

The insertiion of the Eastern epiclesis and the prayer before communion, inserted by the Patriarch of Antioch, might be artificial in a way, but then again it is an organic addition in that the Patriarch is trying to remove a cause of scandal with the rest of the Orthodox, sort of laying out the WRO credentials.

Btw they have a fantastic office for the Neomartyrs of Russia.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The insertiion of the Eastern epiclesis and the prayer before communion, inserted by the Patriarch of Antioch, might be artificial in a way, but then again it is an organic addition in that the Patriarch is trying to remove a cause of scandal with the rest of the Orthodox, sort of laying out the WRO credentials.

The epiclesis and other necessary emendations to the WEstern Rite were completed by St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, hence why it is referred to as the Rite of St. Tikhon.

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.

What comes around goes around, one who is so dismissive of and disrespectful towards the Great Balsamon deserves no more respect.

Quote

That venerable Liturgy [of St. James] (and the Liturgy of St. Mark of Alexandria) was needlessly suppressed in the 13th Century by "Patriarch" Theodore IV (Balsamon), who was a Greek bishop living at Constantinople and who never saw Antioch and never served the Liturgy of St. James. The arrogance of those who discard sacred tradition does not belong only to the modern age. Nor does such arrogance belong to the Latin West

Balsamon's supression of the rites of Antioch were without warrant, and we can't complain of forced Latinizations if Balsamon is our model.

He was the Patriarch of Antioch, it was perfectly within his rights to regulate and define the liturgical activities of his See.

I was reminded of this when I just came across this again

Quote

Gangra c. 18. If any Bishop duly ordained to a diocese fail to go to the one to which he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because of the anfractuosity of the laity, or for some other reason for which he is not responsible, he shall retain the honor and office, only without causing any disturbance to the affairs of the church where he should be accorded a congregation. But he shall await the outcome of the decision of a complete Synod of the province in regard to his appointment.

(Ap. c. XXXVI.)

Interpretation.

Both the above Canon and the present one contain pretty much the same matter as Ap. c. XXXVI contains. For this Canon says that if any bishop who has been duly ordained fails to go to his province, not on account of any blameworthy action of his own, but either because of some disorderly behavior of the laity, or on account of some other outside interference, he shall continue to enjoy the honor of a prelate and to perform the sacred services incumbent upon a prelate, provided that this occasions no scandals and disturbances in strange or foreign provinces to which he might go (for without the consent and approval of the prelate in charge of the region in question, he himself can neither teach, nor perform any sacred function, nor ordain anyone, nor appropriate the proceeds of the church there). But he must wait until his fate has been determined by a complete Synod attended by a Metropolitan, before he can gain any definite provision and resource for a living and prebend. See also Ap. c. XXXVI.

Having never performed the incumbent visitation of his see, let alone his patriarchate, "Pat." Balsamon should have minded his own business in Constantinople and left well enough alone in Antioch and Alexandria.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth